What's the typical cost to a company, in terms of class action damages, for failing to adequately protect user data in this manner?
Just thinking - if they were required to pay each victim (potentially every person who's ever purchased a PS3) $200, which I figure is a reasonable if not slightly small number to pay for this sort of irresponsibility...
Well, they've sold, as of Dec 31 last year, 47.9 million PS3s. So that's, ignoring 2nd-hand sales, 9.6 billion in damages.
Hardly "random". Eventually, sitting here saying over and over again "hey, Craigslist is getting shit from law enforcement for facilitating their jobs" gets old. So no, not random, and very tech-relevant.
Were you high when you wrote this? Because it sounds like you were high when you wrote this.
And please, do enlighten how you "built" the internet, like it's some sort of magical faerie dream land. The Internet is, by and large, a creation of the masses - My creation just as much as yours. And considering the jumble of components, ideas, etc. that went into building it, claiming there's some sort of grand "future" that's inevitable rings a little hollow.
1) They have actual reporters on staff who follow things up and actually get new information for stories. Further, as a specialized website, each of those reporters probably qualifies as a subject matter expert in the field they're reporting on.
2) They don't treat writing as a "collective" and understand that 2 mediocre writers (one writing, one editing) don't make one excellent writer.
3) They actually write their own content, they don't just copy it from other sites.
Yes, they use other websites and such. But they pay for that privilege. It's just that it's Attention instead of Cash (which, again, through advertising is about the same thing)
It's sort of hard to compare that to New York Times, which is a relic of a bygone era and very rarely does it's own proper "reporting". Unless you really want to claim that every independent writer they contract because he happens to live in an area of interest is the pinnacle of journalistic excellence?
See, here's the thing. The internet is not, in fact, "free" for people. That's a misconception and precisely what drove the NYT (amongst others) to this massively ill-conceived paywall.
We, the common users of the internet, pay with our attention. We pay attention to the website, and therefore the ads on the site. If said ads are well built, we might even pay the owners of the ads with real money.
Vice-versa, the owners of said ads pay the owner of the site (in real money) for some portion of the attention they've collected from us. In this sense, content websites are nothing more than middlemen, trying to set up meetings between users and advertisers.
Buried in that is the reason why this paywall won't work. The amount of money these middlemen will be able to get from users is piss-poor compared to the amount they can get from advertisers.
Put another way, 100000 people who regularly visit your website (and pay nothing) are probably worth considerably more to your bottom line than 100 people who are stupid enough to pay for your content. It's the reason why newspaper printing operates at a loss.
There's this concept called a "grey area". And you still don't quite seem to understand the idea of a Presumption of Innocence. As in, when a case falls in a grey area, you presume people innocent until such time as they're found guilty.
Anyways, whether or not an individual is guilty, private organizations cannot and should not take the punishment thereof into their own hands. That's called "vigilantism" and (Gasp!) It's against the law.
Also, for the record, I have not pirated anything. Nor will I ever. I've downloaded cracks for legally purchased, broken software. I do, however, believe in free speech and due process. Which, apparently, are concepts too difficult for your feeble mind to grasp.
So apparently you have no problem with me doing the following?
1) Making statements to the effect that you enjoy conjugal visits with local livestock
2) Walking into the local airport and yelling "I've got a bomb!" (not actually having a bomb, just claiming to have one)
3) Inciting riots
4) Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded building
5) Telling you, in highly graphic terms, that I am going to kill you
6) Blackmailing you with, say, an affair I claim to have seen you having (regardless of the truth of the statement)
All of these, by the mindset your statement seems to be espousing, are free speech (at least insofar as they are actions that can be completed using speech alone). And yet all have been declared to be against the law, in the greater interests of society as a whole.
That's the key - Certain types of speech are and can be restricted if doing so is in the interest of the citizenry as a whole. Without the ability to do so, I think "Anarchy" is the best way to describe the result.