I don't know about a, "suggestion," but the ruling did leave the door open to reclassifying ISPs as common carriers. The opening paragraph of the Mother Jones post about the ruling sums it up nicely:
The long, grinding fight over net neutrality—the principle that everyone should have equal access to the internet—hit another speed bump today. But first, some background. Net neutrality was the de facto status quo until several years ago, when the Bush-era FCC decided to classify internet provision as an information service (IS) rather than a telecom service (TS). This mattered because telecom services had always been regulated as common carriers, which effectively required internet providers to treat everyone equally. Under the IS regime, the old common carrier requirements were replaced by four net neutrality "principles" that were considerably less stringent.
The entire post is very short and should answer your question pretty well.
I don't know how useful this will be. Sure, reddit users will know what's going on, but, odds are, they already know what's going on. Most internet users (plenty of whom are tech savvy) have never heard of reddit or don't visit more than once a year (when a friend happens to link to them).
I like that reddit is taking a stand, and I think they should still do it. I just don't think it will accomplish much. Tech news sites will report on it, but does anybody really think it will get a big headline on anything other than HuffPo or (maybe) Dailly Caller? Didn't think so.
If opponents really want to get noticed, then it needs to be, as others have suggested, a site that is known by everyone. Google, ebay, Yahoo, Amazon...any site like that. Even turning off a subset of their services would make an impact. Google could turn off Google+ or blogger. Amazon could turn off their MP3 sales section.
Those would be noticeable. I think reddit's blackout, as much as I hope it might not, will largely be ignored.
Dylan Ratigan tweeted that they're looking into it and timing was everything. Ummm...it seems to me that if timming were everything, then they would have covered it before the markup vote was supposed to take place (last Friday). If timing truly is everything, then Dylan really needs to get a new watch...
In this case, plaintiff alleged that defendant began soliciting another employee to leave before defendant left, and that defendant allegedly destroyed the data to cover his tracks. On these facts, the court found the “without authorization” element to be adequately pled.
I can see Deloitte having an issue with the hard drive being destroyed if they believed that it had records of his soliciting another employee to leave with him, but do they not have email or chat archives to look at? I don't think that rises to the level of "hacking" by any means though. After all, those ocnversations would be considered personal in nature anyway, right? So how would deleting that be any different from deleting his tax returns, etc.?
And wouldn't an expert in security and privacy know better than to keep that stuff on his work computer anyway (despite stupidity of the masses)?
This just seems like a case of Deloitte bullying a manager who left for something more interesting. If it is a question of him recruiting another employee in violation of an emlpoyment agreement, then " still don't see how this rises to a claim of hacking.
I'll do you one better and posit that no moron in a hurry even knows that the phrase has anything to do with an anti-litter campaign. Seriously. I've been called a moron on numerous occasions, and I always seem to be rushing, and I had no idea what the phrase was about until I looked it up a few years back after reaching the end of the interwebs.
Or, you know, not. The reason private schools appear to perform better is that parents who push their kids into private schools tend to pay more attention to their kids' performance and take an active interest in their education. When you account for parental involvement, achievement rates are about the same for students in public and private schools regardless of socio-economic classes.
I don't think it's so much about morals as much as it is about public relations.
Carr's concerns defintiely aren't anything new, but coompanies' ability to handle customer issues hasn't kept pace with how fast an issue can grow from minor to major.
Issues have become much more immediate and obvious (to the general public). 15, perhaps even 10 years ago a story like the one about Airbnb would have taken longer to get out; not just days, but perhaps weeks or even months (depending on how far back you want to go). Companies would have time to craft a PR response or wait and see if it was really worth caring about. They could get out in front of it and try to control the message.
That time is past.
Now, a story like that one can take only a few hours to become widely known. If it takes more than a day or two, then it's probaboly not that interesting to the general population (or at least the media) to begin with.
But the "problem" for companies is that there is no longer time to react. PR is now a 24/7, every-second-counts game. It's not possible to get out in front of a problem. They can only catch up to it.
They can't wait and see if a problem is really worth caring about. Everybody has a bullhorn, and every problem a customer may have is amplified by everyone else's bullhorn.
Companies, even those that are supposedly savvy and have a rabid following (I'm looking at you Apple and twitter), still seem like they haven't quite figured this out. Even young companies liek Facebook and twitter suffer from the old-school mindset of, "we have time so let's ignore it unless it becomes a problem."
The only way to get out in front of a PR issue now is to either be clairvoyant or treat every customer issue as if it could damage the company; because every customer issue now has that very real potential (no matter if it really deserves it). For whatever reason, companies, in general, haven't yet figured out how to handle this.
So what we get is companies scrambling to get ahead of something they have no hope of getting ahead of, and they're using the same tactics they always have. Techcrunch reporting on Airbnb? Talk to TechCrunch and ask them to report less or tone down the reporting. When they had days or even weeks to talk to them, a company might have been able to work soemthing out. Maybe the company tries to silence the customer in some way as well. Too bad that the cusotmer still has their bullhorn and no need to be patient thanks to the immediate response we can get from the web.
The lead time is gone. Customers expect swift answers. Companies just haven't figured out how to deal with it yet, and I can't figure out why that is.
Or, you know, you could actually understand that the freedom to travel about the country is a right, not a privilege, and doing so by air has been recognized as a Right in the US Code (not to mention the Supreme Court has upeld this view):
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit. - (1) The United
States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the
Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792)
before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure
that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of
commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
So what would you call it instead? Outside of a TSA inspection, it would be called molestation or foreplay. I suppose we could call it foreplay, but then it would probably be even more difficult to argue against. In fact, I bet more people would ask for it in the first place; especially if it came with a happy ending...
There have been more attempts at car/truck bombings in the USA than plane hijackings, and a greater number of successful ones too. By your reasoning (if you can call it that) we should be inspecting every car on the road in some manner or another every time it leaves a person's driveway.
If you can't see a parallel, then perhaps you should take off the blindfold.
As for being a fool, well, I'm not the one willfully giving up my 4th Amendment protections. You go ahead and feel safer because of this if it makes you feel better.