Google isn't involved, but I can understand where AC's confusion comes from.
"While the reporters claim to have discovered the data with a simple Google search, the firms' lawyer claims they used "automated" means..."
Referencing the company Google and then the telco firm without the name can be confusing. High school level reading skills are required to properly understand that without having to read it two or three times.
I admit I'm not an experienced web admin, I only run a few IIS web servers. Do other web servers not have the most basic of security that's built directly into IIS? I can set a folder to require a password to access and that would go for any file in that folder even if the file was accessed directly. This would stop anyone from accessing any file including Google's spider. I won't even go into their lack of the basic use of robot.txt
For right now, I'm going to hold off judgement on the possible actions against the reporters, but shouldn't there be an extra line to this article? Something along the lines of "TerraCom and YourTel are under investigation for gross negligence."
Re: Well, at least there's some resistance here to spying.
You were so close to being logical, but you just had to drop it to make jabs at Google.
Now if we ignore your constant, insane ravings against Google, you're right. We already have laws that could cover this, and laws against destroying things that happen to be flying over your house.
Added bonus: when I read this story a few days ago, that article went out of it's way to mention the drone's camera was pointed in the window. That runs afoul of laws that even cover cameras not on your property.
You have made no such challenge. You've just bitched and moaned like you normally do when proven wrong.
AJ, let me give you some advice. You're never going to convince anyone to join your side by making insane arguments like you do. If you want to get people to agree with you, you may want to use some logic every now and then.
That's not the problem, vary few people are going to be that whiny five year old. The big problem comes from the college administration. They're going to be so worried about someone being offended and losing their government money (or even worse, them getting sued) that they'll go above and beyond to avoid it. If anything overheard by staff can be taken as offensive (even if you have to bang your head against the wall to do it), they'll react as if their lives were destroyed by it.
Does anyone know of anywhere on their site that says that? I've been keeping a list of gaming companies that allow monetization of gaming videos, but I want to have a page I can point at. The surprising one on the list is Blizzard Interactive.
"No respectable ad agency will buy photos for ads without waivers."
That's a CYA kind of thing. Lawsuits are a bitch, even frivolous lawsuits. I've been in commercials without signing a waver. In fact, I was recorded without my knowledge and didn't even know about the commercial until it aired.
Speaking from the point of view of justice (something you may or may not be failure with), it's not AC's job to prove that you're innocent. It's not my job, nor is it your job. We, all of us, are not responsible to prove that you're innocent.
You want to know who is responsible to prove anything? The Attorney General. It's his responsibility to prove that you did do something. And it's his responsibility to prove that terrorists are somehow using something that everyone knows how to get for free to fund their actions.
This isn't about terrorism. This, and most things on this blog, is about justice. And justice isn't just about punishing the guilty, it's about protecting the innocent. The innocent are far, far more important then the guilty.
I agree as well. Pornography is legalized prostitution. The only difference between me and her is I don't think prostitution should be illegal in the first place. Granted, I am assuming that Julie thinks both porn and prostitution should be illegal.
I agree that unions were useful. As you said, they got us the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, sick leave, and the like. They also got us one more thing that you and quite a few others seem to overlook; labor laws. The 40 hour work week is a law, overtime compensation (not necessarily pay) is a law.
Today unions seem to be all about taking massive amounts of money from those they supposedly protect (e.g. insanely high union dues) and screwing over anyone and everyone they can (e.g. the Hostess thing).
There may be legitimate unions, they may even have a place in modern society; but every time I've read about unions or dealt with them, they or on the morally wrong side of the argument.
" Funny how you ignore the thing that apparently started the whole mess (Victory not paying its artists, among other misdeeds), and go straight to blaming the band's attempt to bring the label's practices to light"
Horse With No Name is just following the Star Trek rules of temporal mechanics. Sometimes effect can precede cause.
Victory didn't pay Streetlight because Streetlight was going to call Victory out over them not paying what was owed. You see?
Yeah, that episode of Voyager didn't make any damn sense to me ether.
"Some children would consider it threatening, who are scared about shootings in schools or shootings in the community,"
I learned something a while ago about phobias. I have a phobia of bugs, anything with more then four legs freaks me out. I was able to ignore it until I accepted the fact that I had a phobia. Now I can't go anywhere near the damn things. Accepting that I had the fear and using it as an excuse to not do things nurtured the fear and turned it into something much worse.
The same can be seen when dealing with pets that fear loud noises. If your dog gets freaked out by thunder and you coddle it, the dog thinks that thunder is truly a thing to be feared (and the barking at the thunder gets worse). But if you ignore the thunder and treat the dog like normal, the dog learns not to fear the thunder.
If we over react to children playing with pencils, we teach all children around that anything can be a threat. This is something they will take into adulthood and affect their lives, their jobs, and their families.
This isn't just putting something on these two boy's records, this is teaching everyone in that school that even the smallest thing should be treated with zero understanding, zero forgiveness, and maximum reaction.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What I really want...I have watched a pedestrian try to walk in front of a 40 ton lorry whilst talking to their wife. However in ju,ping back they tossed the phone into the traffic, and by the time it stopped pin balling between vehicles i
As you point out, this is already a risk. Why ban something because it can be used like this. Why not just bitch slap them with current reckless driving laws.
You ban the technology just because it can be abused, you remove the possibility of using it to become a safer driver. A HUD would help people be safer drivers as they wouldn't have to take their eyes off the road as often.
"if a couple 'nice' ones got tossed in by mistake, well, they don't lose too much sleep over us 99% getting fucked over, i won't lost too much over a couple rich pukes being sacrificed for the good of 99%.."
It's this kind of thinking that causes the crap you rally against. Being so willing to sacrifice the innocent to get back at the guilty. We must stop terrorists so we put up with sexual harassment at the airports. We want to stop overeating so we must ban all large soda. We have been slighted by the rich so kill them all.
Isn't it this kind of thinking that caused the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and the Holocaust? Someone must be punished and to hell with the collateral damage.