But, from the original source: "She claims that since 2009 they have made her life a misery by constantly posting photos of her, including embarrassing and intimate images from her childhood."
GP asked a legitimate question concerning whether the parents need consent when they have the power to make legal decisions on behalf of their minor child, i.e., from 2009 to 2015-16.
Her present age is only relevant if you support some form of the "right to be forgotten" that applies to everyone -- not merely "data processors" or commercial services -- or, even more controversially in my opinion, a right to control non-commercial uses of one's image.
"The researchers conducted the work through a statistical analysis of a 2,497 different marine animal groups at one taxonomic level higher than the level of species -- called "genera." And they found that increases in an organism's body size were strongly linked to an increased risk of extinction in the present period -- but that this was not the case in the Earth's distant past.
Indeed, during the past 66 million years, there was actually a small link between smaller body sizes and going extinct, marking the present as a strong reversal. "The extreme bias against large-bodied animals distinguishes the modern diversity crisis from all potential deep-time analogs," the researchers write."
I've provided a citation for my fact, now feel free to do so for yours, rather than declaring it one by fiat.
the abysmal security in place is down right embarrassing. and we all know how much the government likes to silence the messengers.
When someone is the one exploiting that abysmal security to trespass into a protected computer, they're not merely the messenger, they're the attacker. And attackers tend to get punished.
If the reporters covering this story were being silenced, then you could complain about "shooting the messenger" problems. This an ordinary and expected result for an ordinary incident of vigilantism.
Really, you logged in three days later to drop that pearl of wisdom? Vigilante hackers aren't any sort of solution. And halfhearted attempts to link them to prophecies of societal decay in the indefinite future do not constitute a justification.
Real people (e.g., Putin) are, by definition, not strawmen.
Anonymous cowards, on the other hand, come damn close.
The number of anonymous cowards crawling out of the woodwork to defend Wikileaks -- not because the article condemns Wikileaks for publishing information about the U.S., but because it questions why Wikileaks does not publish information concerning other "corrupt and authoritarian assholes" -- is mighty, mighty suspicious...
"[D]oes Wikileaks focus on the U.S. and downplay revelations about authoritarian regimes like Russia's as a result of the cozy relationship?"
Why, yes, I believe that it probably does. It certainly does when it comes to Ecuador.
Well I don't even have a smartphone, so that makes me TEN TIMES as humble as you!
Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart? Well, I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art! I'm the pious guy the little Amlettes wanna be like...
He may be guilty under our legal system, but as many people are starting to understand a legal system and a justice system are not the same thing. If we had a justice system, the Bushes and Clintons would be in prison and Guccifer would be free.
Certainly, because the ends always justify the means. Hack your way in to discover evidence of crimes -- it's ok so long as they deserve to go to prison.
"People like this should be considered heroes for exposing the criminals" says every U.S. TLA when deploying Stingrays, "Network Investigative Techniques," and other exploits against the very not wealthy and very not powerful.
Yet what happens when they don't find evidence of a crime -- are they still guiltless? If some of the roughly 100 people Guccifer raided in his quest to expose were not themselves reasonably suspected of a crime, are they just acceptable collateral damage? When a TLA runs with this principle, are your fellow citizens just acceptable collateral damage?
As long as the employees are not forcibly coerced to work there, I fail to be outraged.
"Pegatron has been passing on financial pressures from Apple by committing multiple violations of Chinese labor laws on fair pay and workplace safety."
In what jurisdiction are you free to violate labor laws so long as you do not forcibly coerce your workers to continue to work for you?
Just curious. I mean, I could improve my life immensely by breaking laws willy nilly while still not using forcible coercion. So I'll probably move there.
For whatever reason, faxes are considered legal paperwork while email is not... even if the fax was sent over IP anyway.
It has nothing to do with whether something is considered "legal paperwork" or not. An email can form a written contract (or be a written communication) as assuredly as a couriered piece of paper or a facsimile.
Fax machines provide delivery confirmation (your fax machine reports whether the entire facsimile was received by the machine at the telephone number that it dialed). You know where it went, and you know that the entire thing got there.
Email, at least historically, hit the Pachinko machine of SMTP relay servers. You knew where it was supposed to go, but you had no idea whether it got there (Do you send read receipts every time someone requests one? REALLY?). These days, it's less Pachinko machine and more Pin the Tail on the Donkey. You know where it's supposed to go, but you have no idea whether it got eaten by the external spam service, the firewall, the internal spam filter, the email client spam filter, or Uncle Horace's all purpose AI email sorter.
The courts have (almost all) converted to electronic filing and docket systems, so no, there's no electronic exception what's considered legal paperwork. If you want to serve someone with a pleading or motion in a case, you can even do it by email, if they've agreed to accept service by email (and thus agreed to be responsible for any screw up in the external spam service, the firewall, the internal spam filter, the email client spam filter, or Uncle Horace's all purpose AI email sorter).
It's all about achieving a level of assurance that "they got it."
I'm sorry the you considered the first two sentences not to be a rebuttal. If you had bothered to discuss the remainder, I might actually have read more than the first few of yours.
It's not Wikileaks's role to scan email for viruses...
Yes, it is. See how easy that was to rebut? Now we could get into reasons why one would argue for either position so that this could actually qualify as a discussion rather than a diatribe. Some reasons for it being Wikileak's role: distributing information that actively attacks the recipient, like a smallpox-ridden blanket, and without even warning the recipient of that fact, is counterproductive and morally dishonest. Damaging your audience under the banner of "raw information" while failing to openly disclose one of the more significant aspects of the information... really?
Wikileaks's goal is to provide raw information, unlike that of mainstream journalism.
Well that's a bit of revisionist history, isn't it? I mean, first they redacted information, then they stopped. Yet they still redact source information, because, otherwise, you might be able to determine a source, and that would be bad for Wikileaks.
Wikileak's stated goals vary depending upon the side of Assange's very tiny bed that he woke up on that morning. However, their actions most assuredly represents the personal grudges of Assange himself. Wikileaks does not provide raw information, it provides information curated by Assange for Assange's personal purposes, and you'd do well to remember that.
They are not scamming you; they (and you) are scamming the non-consenting host by using it for something other than the educational material you are allowed to use it for.
Or they're scamming you...
"While most students won't mind free access to the latest blockbusters, the links provided are not leading to regular pirate sites and services.
Instead they point to scammy portals, many of which require a credit card to signup, which undoubtedly leads to disappointment. These kinds of scams are nothing new, but seeing them listed on a Harvard website is a new development.
With links from the official Harvard domain name, the pages are an SEO goldmine and do very well in Google's search results."
I would submit that Packet Capture is either Wiretapping and Wireshark (and other tools, like proxies, firewalls etc etc) are all in violation, or they are not, which would excuse this particular example. It would be a simple case.
It makes a difference whether: 1. You're running Wireshark on your own network to capture traffic sent to or by you (not wiretapping) 2. Your service provider or employer is running Wireshark on its network (for network management purposes, not wiretapping) 3. You're running Wireshark on someone else's network (um, yes, wiretapping) 4. You're running Wireshark on your own network to capture traffic sent to someone else, like your non-consenting spouse (guess what, it's wiretapping!)
18 USC 2511. Read it. Then read the definitions in 18 USC 2510. Or find a lawyer to explain all this to you.
It's not an either or situation. Also, proxies, firewalls, etc. are simply are not interesting -- you've agreed to those in your terms of service, your decision to work for an employer and use their communications resources, etc, and they're using in the ordinary course of providing service, and they don't "acquire" content for the operator (ordinarily)..
On the other hand, your spouse probably hasn't contractually submitted to your dreams of communications totalitarianism where you log and review everything they do, so yes, the same tool can be in violation or not.
No, that's the old-and-still-operative author/speaker rules.
The old, print media publisher rules held that the publisher could be liable for "republishing" the author/speaker's defamatory content to an audience. They also are still operative for print-only publications.
I'm perfectly aware of the pre- and post-CDA legal regimes. I'm a practicing attorney.
Can't they? Twitter doesn't allow child porn; they seem to do a good job policing that.
Child porn is a crime. The things you complain about typically aren't (yet) crimes, and you're not willing to work through the hard first amendment issues and political process necessary to make them crimes.
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute." 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(1).
To see them brought to tears because they're called the worst of names from cowards who would never say such things to their face leads me to believe that there must be a better solution than tolerating this filth.
It's called dealing with (and potentially prosecuting) the actual speaker, not taking the cop-out route and shutting down the publisher simply because they're the easy target with deep pockets and a greater interest in continuing their business than litigating someone else's speech issue. (the real goal of publisher liability; sue the party most likely to give up to preemptively shut down the party that might fight).
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(1).
You don't have to tolerate the filth. Go after the "cowards," you shirker, rather than trying to essentially destroy internet services by imposing wholly unreasonbable, and frequently extralegal, responsibilities and costs upon them.
What anyone posts on Twitter is, by every definition of the word, publishing. So, if People Magazine makes a statement like, "Pollux is a child molester," they are making an untrue public statement that may easily be subject to a libel suit. Trolls everyday on Twitter say the same, so why don't we hold Twitter to the same standard? They are the medium and should be held as equally responsible as any paper printing of the same libelous statement.
Because under that regime I could effectively destroy Slashdot by merely finding a half dozen examples of typical poster asshattery and pursuing Slashot for being the "publisher" of said asshattery.
You want the old, print media publisher rules to apply. That's wonderful. Everyone can wait a day or more for posts to be vetted; then wait another day or more for replies to pass the same filter, all while hoping that other issues have not become more topical in the meantime. After all, nobody's subjecting themselves to potential liability for defamation using unpaid volunteer moderators -- they'll be hiring modern day copyeditors at a living wage. That means your staff budget is far larger than writers, editors, and IT staff. If modern newspaper websites are shutting down comments because they don't like the community and aren't willing to deal with moderation (even with the so-called CDA immunity), you think that adding liability is going to help?
Everything old will be new again. CompuServe and AOL message boards at best -- with corresponding montly subscription fees -- or hobbiests hoping to fly under the radar (remember the good 'ol days of C64 BBSs with maybe 1000 users? You will...). Github - gone, because you can post anything on github even though it's principally for code. Youtube - gone, because nobody's hiring staff to watch every single video. Search engines to help you locate those esoteric bits of information - super gone. We're going back to classical Yahoo, because a directory requires minimal moderation, whereas reading every single post on every single site because a "bad" sentence might appear in the search result is... utterly impractical.
We rejected that possible universe, and we're not going back to it. You're an idiot if you think that you could ever impose those rules while somehow keeping even a majority of the benefits that you currently enjoy.
Anyone with the anniversary update can use it. It's not Windows Insider specific since the release.
As between you and the Microsoft installation guide, updated two days ago, I'm deeming the installation guide more credible.
Prerequisites 1. Windows 10 Anniversary Update - build 14393 Available as of 8/2/2016 2. x64-based processor 3. Your PC must have an AMD/Intel x64 compatible CPU 4. You must be a member of the (free) Windows Insider Program (Preferably Fast-Ring) 5. Your PC must be running a 64-bit version of Windows 10 Anniversary Update build 14316 or later
My (and likely your) Microsoft ID is still in the Windows Insider Program, even if Get Insider Preview Builds is not active on that particular installation. Unless you've actually installed it, using only a local account or one known not to have ever signed up as an Insider, you can't support that claim.
Dear DRJlaw, We hereby inform you that Windows Insider version of our software is what the outside world calls alpha version. First release version of our software is the beta stage. Service Pack 1 (or even 2 in some cases) is what outsider would call the finished product. Signed, Your friendly Microsoft CEO
Slashdot Mirror
And a hercules Graphics Card, the way green-phosphored monochrome computer screens are supposed to be!
But, from the original source: "She claims that since 2009 they have made her life a misery by constantly posting photos of her, including embarrassing and intimate images from her childhood."
GP asked a legitimate question concerning whether the parents need consent when they have the power to make legal decisions on behalf of their minor child, i.e., from 2009 to 2015-16.
Her present age is only relevant if you support some form of the "right to be forgotten" that applies to everyone -- not merely "data processors" or commercial services -- or, even more controversially in my opinion, a right to control non-commercial uses of one's image.
Didn't even bother to look at the second link did you: "to be published in the Sept. 16 issue of the journal Science."
And the Washington Post is still a better source than absolutely freaking nothing, isn't it.
Oh, no. I totally got it. Double secret reverse woooossshhhhhhh.
An anonymous coward trying to save face. There's another woooossshhhhhhh for you...
Another fact: you're completely wrong!
"The researchers conducted the work through a statistical analysis of a 2,497 different marine animal groups at one taxonomic level higher than the level of species -- called "genera." And they found that increases in an organism's body size were strongly linked to an increased risk of extinction in the present period -- but that this was not the case in the Earth's distant past.
Indeed, during the past 66 million years, there was actually a small link between smaller body sizes and going extinct, marking the present as a strong reversal. "The extreme bias against large-bodied animals distinguishes the modern diversity crisis from all potential deep-time analogs," the researchers write."
I've provided a citation for my fact, now feel free to do so for yours, rather than declaring it one by fiat.
Woooossshhhhhhh....
When someone is the one exploiting that abysmal security to trespass into a protected computer, they're not merely the messenger, they're the attacker. And attackers tend to get punished.
If the reporters covering this story were being silenced, then you could complain about "shooting the messenger" problems. This an ordinary and expected result for an ordinary incident of vigilantism.
Really, you logged in three days later to drop that pearl of wisdom? Vigilante hackers aren't any sort of solution. And halfhearted attempts to link them to prophecies of societal decay in the indefinite future do not constitute a justification.
Well, nobody appointed Guccifer, or you.
I don't have to cry you a river; I'll cheer them locking up vigilantes and, as a bonus, probably piss you off.
Real people (e.g., Putin) are, by definition, not strawmen.
Anonymous cowards, on the other hand, come damn close.
The number of anonymous cowards crawling out of the woodwork to defend Wikileaks -- not because the article condemns Wikileaks for publishing information about the U.S., but because it questions why Wikileaks does not publish information concerning other "corrupt and authoritarian assholes" -- is mighty, mighty suspicious...
"[D]oes Wikileaks focus on the U.S. and downplay revelations about authoritarian regimes like Russia's as a result of the cozy relationship?"
Why, yes, I believe that it probably does. It certainly does when it comes to Ecuador.
Think you're really righteous?
Think you're pure in heart?
Well, I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art!
I'm the pious guy the little Amlettes wanna be like...
Hi Vladimir!
Nothing like "massive corruption" in the west to distract your own populace from even more massive corruption in the east, is there?!
Certainly, because the ends always justify the means. Hack your way in to discover evidence of crimes -- it's ok so long as they deserve to go to prison.
"People like this should be considered heroes for exposing the criminals" says every U.S. TLA when deploying Stingrays, "Network Investigative Techniques," and other exploits against the very not wealthy and very not powerful.
Yet what happens when they don't find evidence of a crime -- are they still guiltless? If some of the roughly 100 people Guccifer raided in his quest to expose were not themselves reasonably suspected of a crime, are they just acceptable collateral damage? When a TLA runs with this principle, are your fellow citizens just acceptable collateral damage?
Sorry, I don't buy it.
"Pegatron has been passing on financial pressures from Apple by committing multiple violations of Chinese labor laws on fair pay and workplace safety."
In what jurisdiction are you free to violate labor laws so long as you do not forcibly coerce your workers to continue to work for you?
Just curious. I mean, I could improve my life immensely by breaking laws willy nilly while still not using forcible coercion. So I'll probably move there.
It has nothing to do with whether something is considered "legal paperwork" or not. An email can form a written contract (or be a written communication) as assuredly as a couriered piece of paper or a facsimile.
Fax machines provide delivery confirmation (your fax machine reports whether the entire facsimile was received by the machine at the telephone number that it dialed). You know where it went, and you know that the entire thing got there.
Email, at least historically, hit the Pachinko machine of SMTP relay servers. You knew where it was supposed to go, but you had no idea whether it got there (Do you send read receipts every time someone requests one? REALLY?). These days, it's less Pachinko machine and more Pin the Tail on the Donkey. You know where it's supposed to go, but you have no idea whether it got eaten by the external spam service, the firewall, the internal spam filter, the email client spam filter, or Uncle Horace's all purpose AI email sorter.
The courts have (almost all) converted to electronic filing and docket systems, so no, there's no electronic exception what's considered legal paperwork. If you want to serve someone with a pleading or motion in a case, you can even do it by email, if they've agreed to accept service by email (and thus agreed to be responsible for any screw up in the external spam service, the firewall, the internal spam filter, the email client spam filter, or Uncle Horace's all purpose AI email sorter).
It's all about achieving a level of assurance that "they got it."
I'm sorry the you considered the first two sentences not to be a rebuttal. If you had bothered to discuss the remainder, I might actually have read more than the first few of yours.
Yes, it is. See how easy that was to rebut? Now we could get into reasons why one would argue for either position so that this could actually qualify as a discussion rather than a diatribe. Some reasons for it being Wikileak's role: distributing information that actively attacks the recipient, like a smallpox-ridden blanket, and without even warning the recipient of that fact, is counterproductive and morally dishonest. Damaging your audience under the banner of "raw information" while failing to openly disclose one of the more significant aspects of the information... really?
Well that's a bit of revisionist history, isn't it? I mean, first they redacted information, then they stopped. Yet they still redact source information, because, otherwise, you might be able to determine a source, and that would be bad for Wikileaks.
Wikileak's stated goals vary depending upon the side of Assange's very tiny bed that he woke up on that morning. However, their actions most assuredly represents the personal grudges of Assange himself. Wikileaks does not provide raw information, it provides information curated by Assange for Assange's personal purposes, and you'd do well to remember that.
Or they're scamming you...
"While most students won't mind free access to the latest blockbusters, the links provided are not leading to regular pirate sites and services.
Instead they point to scammy portals, many of which require a credit card to signup, which undoubtedly leads to disappointment. These kinds of scams are nothing new, but seeing them listed on a Harvard website is a new development.
With links from the official Harvard domain name, the pages are an SEO goldmine and do very well in Google's search results."
RTFA.
It makes a difference whether:
1. You're running Wireshark on your own network to capture traffic sent to or by you (not wiretapping)
2. Your service provider or employer is running Wireshark on its network (for network management purposes, not wiretapping)
3. You're running Wireshark on someone else's network (um, yes, wiretapping)
4. You're running Wireshark on your own network to capture traffic sent to someone else, like your non-consenting spouse (guess what, it's wiretapping!)
18 USC 2511. Read it. Then read the definitions in 18 USC 2510. Or find a lawyer to explain all this to you.
It's not an either or situation. Also, proxies, firewalls, etc. are simply are not interesting -- you've agreed to those in your terms of service, your decision to work for an employer and use their communications resources, etc, and they're using in the ordinary course of providing service, and they don't "acquire" content for the operator (ordinarily)..
On the other hand, your spouse probably hasn't contractually submitted to your dreams of communications totalitarianism where you log and review everything they do, so yes, the same tool can be in violation or not.
No, that's the old-and-still-operative author/speaker rules.
The old, print media publisher rules held that the publisher could be liable for "republishing" the author/speaker's defamatory content to an audience. They also are still operative for print-only publications.
I'm perfectly aware of the pre- and post-CDA legal regimes. I'm a practicing attorney.
Child porn is a crime. The things you complain about typically aren't (yet) crimes, and you're not willing to work through the hard first amendment issues and political process necessary to make them crimes.
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute." 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(1).
It's called dealing with (and potentially prosecuting) the actual speaker, not taking the cop-out route and shutting down the publisher simply because they're the easy target with deep pockets and a greater interest in continuing their business than litigating someone else's speech issue. (the real goal of publisher liability; sue the party most likely to give up to preemptively shut down the party that might fight).
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(1).
You don't have to tolerate the filth. Go after the "cowards," you shirker, rather than trying to essentially destroy internet services by imposing wholly unreasonbable, and frequently extralegal, responsibilities and costs upon them.
Because under that regime I could effectively destroy Slashdot by merely finding a half dozen examples of typical poster asshattery and pursuing Slashot for being the "publisher" of said asshattery.
You want the old, print media publisher rules to apply. That's wonderful. Everyone can wait a day or more for posts to be vetted; then wait another day or more for replies to pass the same filter, all while hoping that other issues have not become more topical in the meantime. After all, nobody's subjecting themselves to potential liability for defamation using unpaid volunteer moderators -- they'll be hiring modern day copyeditors at a living wage. That means your staff budget is far larger than writers, editors, and IT staff. If modern newspaper websites are shutting down comments because they don't like the community and aren't willing to deal with moderation (even with the so-called CDA immunity), you think that adding liability is going to help?
Everything old will be new again. CompuServe and AOL message boards at best -- with corresponding montly subscription fees -- or hobbiests hoping to fly under the radar (remember the good 'ol days of C64 BBSs with maybe 1000 users? You will...). Github - gone, because you can post anything on github even though it's principally for code. Youtube - gone, because nobody's hiring staff to watch every single video. Search engines to help you locate those esoteric bits of information - super gone. We're going back to classical Yahoo, because a directory requires minimal moderation, whereas reading every single post on every single site because a "bad" sentence might appear in the search result is... utterly impractical.
We rejected that possible universe, and we're not going back to it. You're an idiot if you think that you could ever impose those rules while somehow keeping even a majority of the benefits that you currently enjoy.
Congratulations, you've checked the box for "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."
Nevermind dropping the whole "falsely" thing. Banning someone for yelling "fire" when there is a fire, however small, is the height of idiocy.
As between you and the Microsoft installation guide, updated two days ago, I'm deeming the installation guide more credible.
Prerequisites
1. Windows 10 Anniversary Update - build 14393 Available as of 8/2/2016
2. x64-based processor
3. Your PC must have an AMD/Intel x64 compatible CPU
4. You must be a member of the (free) Windows Insider Program (Preferably Fast-Ring)
5. Your PC must be running a 64-bit version of Windows 10 Anniversary Update build 14316 or later
My (and likely your) Microsoft ID is still in the Windows Insider Program, even if Get Insider Preview Builds is not active on that particular installation. Unless you've actually installed it, using only a local account or one known not to have ever signed up as an Insider, you can't support that claim.
Dear Satya,
The feature is branded "beta," deliberately. Read the FAQ
Signed,
Actual Microsoft product page