Seriously, does anyone have their email? The idea of losing my Gmail account makes me all cold inside. I want to send them an email telling them to stop what they are doing, because I need that account.
I have two email accounts, Yahoo and Gmail. I use Yahoo for job searching and dealing with the internet at large (for instance, I use my Yahoo account here). I use Gmail for talking with my family and friends. If Gmail goes down, I'd lose all my conversations with them! The very idea makes me all cold inside.
Unfortunately, it is a truism that 'The system has flaws'. Equally unfortunately, the very things that are flawed keep worse or unexpected flaws from coming into the system. This is true of the judicial system and it is true everywhere else.
Lawyers are corrupt, it is true. Life is unfair. If we didn't have certain protections in place (which, at the same time that they protect, they allow this corruption) then the system would be as deadly as any third-world legal system. This is not to say it can't be changed, but some people tend to take a very defeatist attitude. "This is bad, so we should scrap the whole thing." "This is wrong, and so the whole system doesn't work." Sure, it can and probably should be changed. If you think of a way, call your congressman and lets get to work on getting it implemented. But throwing up your hands and saying, "Screw this, I'm taking my ball and going home," doesn't help anything.
As to what American courts are trying to hide: Public opinion, which is not supposed to have any place in the court. Juries 'can' ask for evidence, during deliberations. Did you think they just lock them in a room and throw away the key, expecting them to use their memories to recall all hundred or so hours of the case? No! That is why they make detailed recordings of everything, and carefully label things, so the jury can bring things into the room. Juries don't ask questions of witnesses because that is the prosecutor and defender's job. And, if a juror asks a stupid question, they won't feel slighted when they get a stupid answer (as does happen with prosecutors and defenders). Jurors are supposed to be calm, outside observers, seeing what is going on and making a determination upon it. If the defense doesn't give a good case, or the prosecution doesn't, that is for the judge to decide (by declaring a mistrial, by striking evidence, by giving instruction to the jury and by assigning a new attorney if the current ones prove incompetent).
As to whether or not it is more just, just is not a seeming, or a feeling. Justice is truth, pure and simple. And now I will get off my soapbox and go play.
Ack! I forgot the defender. Sorry, what I really meant, was the lawyers in the case, both for the defense and prosecution. Though, really, they can't discuss it with them, they can only listen as the lawyers try to explain what happened and why they should think one thing or the other.
Well, if you weren't boffing susan, then she can sue you for defamation. However, if you were boffing her, I don't see how the suit could stick, as you were simply telling the truth, and you didn't mention anything concerning her character.
As to her suing the company, we don't know the details. Were you the only businessman boffing her? Was she threatened by you or others if she didn't boff you? Etc.
And yes, I know you were being sarcastic. I just thought it would be amusing to respond as though you were being truthful.
Well, this is a clear violation of the law. Jurors are not allowed to discuss trial with anyone but the judge, the prosecutors, or other jurors. Sending out twitter messages during the trial is illegal and should call for an appeal and possibly a mistrial.
"That will undoubtedly have an effect on people's online behavior, and could hamper the growth of social networking and online life-sharing."
I am not sure this is necessarily bad. It isn't good, but it isn't bad, either. It is simply a fact of sharing your life online. If people realize that sharing their entire life online is going to take away their privacy, and they value their privacy, they are going to stop sharing their entire life online. It is a choice that people just haven't been thinking about till now. Hopefully, this will lead to more thoughtful business models for social sites in the future.
I don't know what those might be (I'm not in the business) but I am sure more intelligent people then I will figure it out.
BTR1701: I did not know those laws, but if you are correct, that is fine. However, the court is not using 'discovery' as the reason why it is demanding that information. The fact that it is using this definition is disturbing and alarming. For instance: I tell my most intimate and darkest secrets to my psychiatrist. Now, my doctor/patient priviledge holds true here, but the court could claim that because I shared that information with the psychiatrist, I wanted it know by "others". That is very disturbing, I'm afraid.
It isn't the information being shared that is the problem, it is the reasonable expectation of privacy, and the way in which the court decided to pursue this information. Because of that, I am worried.
I think you missed the point, Anshar. The court isn't saying that the people you invited to your facebook profile don't have the right to share what they have seen. The court is saying that the civil court has the right to demand 'from facebook' the information it wants.
This is a lot like saying that the police have a right to listen to your phone calls, because you are calling someone. You are not talking to yourself, obviously. So therefor, your 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is taken away because you intend to talk to someone. I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that.
Obviously, however, the other person you are talking to can parrot your statements to whomever they want. That is their right, because you shared the information with them. However, the carrier cannot do that. It invades privacy.
The expectation of privacy is pretty clear in this case. You set your facebook profile to private, adding that only certain people can access it. This would suggest that you want it kept private.
If I stood on a soap box on the corner and shouted out my secrets for the world to hear, that would be one thing. But if I send a message to someone through a carrier (Whether it be facebook, email, or voice mail) there is an expectation that it will be kept private.
The difference between Intelligence and Education is thus: An educated person can do the work he has been trained to do, with the tools needed to do that work. An intelligent person will make the tools needed to do work that he has not been trained to do, and then do that work.
I laughed for a solid ten minutes after reading this headline! It reminds me of past headlines that newspapers have used, and it just seemed like such a hilarious statement.
Though, upon reading what the article actually said, it wasn't as funny. Still funny, but not as funny as I thought. What I thought, was that the report had been plagiarized, which as you can see, is hilarious. But, the fact that the report on plagiarism committed plagiarism is also funny.
I have figured out the problem, Mike and Twinrova. You are not saying opposite things, just different things.
Twinrova (as an explaination of what I think you mean for the benefit of others), you believe that 'advertising' as it currently exists is repetitive and overly interested in itself. The 'creator' puts out a big production he calls 'Content', but ultimately it is up to the viewer, the 'consumer' (us, in a nutshell) to determine if it is 'Content'. That is, if we want to see it.
Mike (again, as an explaination of what I think you mean), you feel that if someone creates 'content' that also involves advertising, that they will be successful. They have not hidden the advertising in the content, they have merged the two, creating something that is not repetitive and over the top, but something that is interesting and entertaining that also gets your product advertised.
You are both saying the same thing, just coming at it from different angles. Mike feels that content and advertising is the same thing (this is true, because the best advertising for your product is providing the best product available). Twinrova feels that advertising is, by its very nature, irritating and repetitive (this 'can be' true, as advertisers have given us this impression by creating repetitive, boring ads). But, Twinrova also admits that entertaining advertising is good. This is the whole point! So, really there is no argument here.
Let us look at the context. He sued because the sites he was visiting were keeping logs of his IP address. This is a lot like saying that when you go to the store and give them your name, they remember your name later on. Of course the site logs your IP address: this is part of how networking and the internet works. The computer, by its very nature, logs your visit when you send it your IP address. Duh.
Now, if he had been suing because they were using the logs for some sort of privacy violation, that might be different, and would bring up other problems. But the idea that you would sue because a computer remembered your name (As above, if you go to a store and tell them your name, you can't sue because they later remember your name) is ridiculous. I'm glad to see someone in the government of Germany is paying attention.
Now, if we could get the idiots in the US to do the same, we might be getting somewhere...