Maybe. It's also conceivable that he didn't even think about that possibility when he made the call, assuming that the SWAT team would figure it all out before actually opening fire on someone. After all, it's well known that SWAT teams never shoot people accidentally, or throw flash-bangs into baby cribs, right?
I'm not sure which of these situations (intending harm vs. not even considering the possibility of harm) is worse.
Why would you absorb it when you can make $$$ off of those users? These companies will do anything they can to rake in more cash, regardless of whether or not there's an actual technical reason for the additional charges.
When I read that sentence, my thought was for the unsuspecting SOs of the people using the site, who were suddenly dropped into a world where anybody (friends, relatives, neighbors) could easily find out that someone they trusted (presumably) was "stepping out".
These days, I would almost expect that any self-respecting SWAT team would come prepared with a backup supply of dope that could be "found" in a case like this. Someone wasn't on the ball here, and I hope that he or she gets the "full extent of the law" slap on the wrist.
I'm not sure "better" is really achievable, given the current mix. You may have to settle for "not quite as blatantly stoking people's fears", but finding even that may be a problem.
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 10th, 2014 @ 9:15pm
With kids in the car?
Of course. What better cover for a couple of terrorists than to look like an ordinary family? Clearly, anyone with kids in the car must be a terrorist!
Because of this, terrorists will go to great lengths to not have children in the car. This means that anyone who doesn't have children in the car must also be a terrorist.
2006 was just after the Sony/BMG rootkit debacle (discovered in late 2005). Lots of people announced that they were going to boycott Sony; maybe enough actually did that it affected Sony's profits?
You folks are all missing the point. Clearly this guy is dangerous. I'll bet he even has stacks of pre-nibbled breakfast pastries in his kitchen, and he's just waiting for the right time to distribute them to unsuspecting elementary school kids so that he can proceed with his plan for world domination.
On the post: Shipyard Brewing Sues The Brewery It Is Trademark Bullying Over The Public Backlash To Its Trademark Bullying
Re: First rule...
On the post: Law Enforcement 'Training And Expertise' On Parade!
On the post: Nation's Police Chiefs Disagree With Trump's New Tough On Crime Executive Orders
Re: Mr. Brightside
On the post: How Pirates Shaped The Internet As We Know It
Hmmm....
On the post: Man Who Doxxed Dozens Of People, Engaged In Nineteen 'Swattings', Nets Only One Year In Prison
Re: Re: Fair sentence.
I'm not sure which of these situations (intending harm vs. not even considering the possibility of harm) is worse.
On the post: Annoying Windows 10 Update Request Highlights Its Annoying-Ness On Live Weather Broadcast
Re: Exactly the marketing Microsoft deserves.
FTFY.
On the post: AT&T Follows Comcast's Lead, Now Charging Users $30 More To Avoid Usage Caps
On the post: Senator Lindsey Graham Finally Talks To Tech Experts, Switches Side In FBI V. Apple Fight
On the post: Court Has An Opportunity To Finally End The East Texas Patent Troll Docket
wishing and hoping
On the post: Anonymous Plaintiffs File Misguided Lawsuit Against Amazon, GoDaddy, Others Over Ashley Madison Hack
On the post: Confidential Informants: Inherently Trustworthy Until They're Not
Oops
/s
On the post: Godzilla Sues The Godzilla Of Copyright Trolls, Voltage Pictures, For Copyright Infringement
On the post: Chris Christie: Your NSA Fears Are Bullshit And Civil Liberties Advocates Are Extremists
be careful what you wish for
I'm not sure "better" is really achievable, given the current mix. You may have to settle for "not quite as blatantly stoking people's fears", but finding even that may be a problem.
On the post: Theater Chains Pout, Boycott Netflix's New Movie To Protect Antiquated Release Windows
Re: Conundrum
On the post: 'Scorpion' Walter O'Brien Finally Tries To Respond To Inconsistencies In His Many Claims
On the post: Seat Belt Violation Greeted With Spike Strip, Smashed Window And Tasering
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 10th, 2014 @ 9:15pm
Of course. What better cover for a couple of terrorists than to look like an ordinary family? Clearly, anyone with kids in the car must be a terrorist!
Because of this, terrorists will go to great lengths to not have children in the car. This means that anyone who doesn't have children in the car must also be a terrorist.
It's a win-win situation for the police!
On the post: 'Trusted Third Party' Neustar Pays Chertoff Group To Talk FCC Out Of Handing Control Of Crucial Cell Phone Database To Foreign Company
On the post: Obama Administration Learns: If You Redefine Every Word In The Dictionary, You Can Get Away With Just About Anything
Lazy
On the post: New Study Confirms: Internet Is Contributing To Massive Profit Levels At Legacy Entertainment Firms
Re: Re:
On the post: Heavy Metal Lyrics Posted To Facebook Result In Arrest For Terrorist Threats
Missing the point
Next >>