by Mike Masnick
Thu, Mar 15th 2012 3:55pm
Wed, Dec 4th 2013 8:50am
Closes: 24 Dec 2013, 11:59PM PT
We've all seen the digital panic that ensues when a massive service like Gmail or Facebook goes down for even a small portion of users. Smaller versions of the same thing take place every day with services that are less widely adopted but just as important to the people who rely on them. It doesn't even take an outage to cause problems — frequent slowdowns and interruptions can quickly cause a massive productivity traffic jam. With the degree to which we live our lives and do our work online, service problems are much more than a minor inconvenience, and at the wrong moment can be a disaster.
So we want to know: how does this impact the way you use the web? Are you prepared for interruptions in the online apps and services you use most? Have you ever abandoned an app for spotty performance, or adopted one specifically for its reliability? We're looking for everything in the way of insights, anecdotes and ideas about performance issues online.
You can share your responses on the Insight Community. Remember, if you have a Techdirt account, then you're already a member and can head on over to the case page to submit your insights.
One best response chosen by New Relic and the Techdirt editorial team will receive a free one-year Watercooler subscription on Techdirt (regular price $50). The subscription includes access to the Crystal Ball and the Insider Chat, plus five monthly First Word/Last Word credits, and can be applied to your own Techdirt account or gifted to someone else.
The case will be open for four weeks, with the best response announced shortly afterwards. We look forward to your insights!
by Mike Masnick
Tue, Nov 15th 2011 2:05pm
Judge Orders Divorcing Couple To Swap Facebook And Dating Site Passwords, Breaking Facebook's Own Rules
from the this-makes-no-sense dept
In “normal” discovery, a litigant is usually asked to turn over “responsive material” not the keys to access all that material and more...I honestly can't figure out why that "normal" route wouldn't make sense here. Why require full access to each others' accounts? As Hill also notes, this certainly violates Facebook's terms of service, and it seems odd that a judge would require users to violate the terms of service. It also seems strange since having such access can lead to additional mayhem as well. Beyond just accessing all sorts of content that may not even be relevant for the case, what happens if one of them contacts someone else using the other's account. It just seems to go way beyond what makes sense.
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Jun 10th 2011 9:27am
from the sounds-like-a-movie dept
And that's where the case turned strange.
After holding him for four days, federal prosecutors have dropped all charges against David. Amazingly, he provided them with a sworn affidavit that he'd had notarized before all of the incriminating messages were sent to "Studebaker," a letter saying that he believed his wife was behind the account and was trying to "tamper" with his life:
I received a friend request from a one Jessica Studebaker. From the start of that friend request, I was under suspicion that it was not a real person, but my ex-wife or someone she knows. I am talking to this 'person' on Facebook via messages through the Facebook mail system. I am lying to this person in extent to gain positive proof that it is indeed my ex-wife trying to again tamper in my life. Anything said in the chat to her from me cannot be held as truth and I am chatting to this person in attempts to prove to my court that my ex-wife will not leave my personal life alone.... The lies that I am placing in this chat is for her to bring such up in court on the 8th day of June, 2011. I need proof what my ex-wife has been doing.... In no way do I have plans to leave with my children or do any harm to Angela Dawn Voelkert or anyone else....Federal officials checked with the person who notarized the letter, confirming that it was indeed written and signed prior to the messages actually being sent... and realized that they had no case at all.
So how long until the movie rights to this story are sold?
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Apr 23rd 2010 11:23am
from the taker-of-the-photos... dept
The husband gets 75% of the photos or three out of every four on each page of 75 photo albums, DeStefano wrote. His wife gets what's left.If you're wondering why not just make copies, apparently the couple had already paid over $2,000 to scan all the images and have them put onto a CD, but both sides were "unhappy with the quality and demanded originals." It seems like they could have just gone back to whoever scanned the images and demanded higher quality scans, but that's neither here nor there.
"The court finds that the husband was intricately involved with taking, compiling and cataloging the thousands of photos at issue," DeStefano wrote in a case in which the spouses were identified only by initials.
"He equated his collecting of photographs of family with the hobby of collecting rare books."
What struck me about this is you sort of wonder why no one brought up copyright. Technically, whoever took the photos most likely owned the copyright on those photos, and could claim that the photos were his or her right to own. This is one of the more annoying parts of copyright law, but whoever takes the photo often has a strong claim on the copyright, even if the camera is someone else's (remember that the next time you ask your friend -- or, I guess, spouse -- to take a photo for you). So, I would imagine that if the guy took most of the photos, he could just claim copyright on them and keep them from his ex-wife. In the meantime, though, perhaps we should be thankful that copyright was not used in this particular case -- even if the result seems a little silly. There are services that can duplicate photos (not just scan them), and it seems like this whole situation could have been solved without involving a court at all.
by Mike Masnick
Mon, Dec 28th 2009 7:44am
from the symptom,-not-cause dept
I also wonder if there's a bit of a generational thing going on here. I would guess that those who have grown up with Facebook probably won't be as freaked out to find out that someone is still friends with an ex-. There will always be some aspect of jealousy, of course (especially among young people), but we're reaching an era when it's no longer that strange to stay in at least some form of contact with lots of people you meet. The older you are, the more used to losing touch with people you are, and thus a reconnection seems like a bigger deal than it might be to groups of people who have remained in touch constantly.