I regularly discuss online privacy with my children, along with frequently monitoring the Internet usage of my older two children. We have had zero problems so far (not even a virus), despite their underage Facebook profiles. (They use it to communicate with their relatives and their equally underaged friends.)
At the same time, it is clear. In the "real world", where we have age limits on all sorts of things, businesses are routinely fined and punished for not enforcing age limits.
No. In the 'real world', where we have age limits on all sorts of things that are physically dangerous for children, business are routinely fined and punished for not taking reasonable steps to enforce age limits.
Nope, still bullshit. See, the number of parents refusing to vaccinate isn't growing. (According to the CDC, anyway, whom I trust to have the correct numbers. Other people may be listening to their sourceless news media instead, so whatever.)
So, to FTFY:
Given the serious health problems that would be created...
Given the serious health problems that may be created...
...by increasing numbers of parents refusing to vaccinate their children...
...by a low and steady number of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children...
...due to clueless anti-scientific fear-mongering...
...for many reasons, including religious reasons, allergies, immune issues, valid concerns, lax parenting, and clueless fear-mongering...
...you would think that a government Department of Health would be thrilled that one of its employees was defending vaccinations and talking back to someone who was arguing against vaccines.
...you would think that a government Department of Health would be thrilled that one of its employees was defending vaccinations and talking back to someone who was arguing against vaccines, as long as they were acknowledging the fact that vaccination rates among children remain both steady and high, and the less than 1% of parents who chose not to vaccinate include those who do so for valid medical reasons.
Look at the abject terror in the eyes of chose children. And tell me that the infinitesimally small number of people that have adverse reactions to vaccines is worse than that.
You're advocating an emotional approach to scientific decisions? Really?
You're both wrong. The issue isn't what the data does or does not show. The issue is the data that doesn't yet exist. Some of the gaps are being researched, but the manufacturers have no liability and thus, no reason to waste money filling information gaps or improving vaccines at all.
Also, the debunked study in question? It's a straw man, only cited by people who are blindly pro-vaccine. People who actually choose not to vaccinate usually do so piecemeal (weighing each medication and it's attendant risks) and have neither read that paper nor give a shit what celebrities have to say about health care.
Last, but certainly not least, Mike's line about non-vaccinating parents causing actual public health issues is total bullshit. (Sorry, Mike. For once, you're wrong.) According to the CDC, immunizations have remained both steady and high and have not dropped, no matter what your favorite mainstream news source would have you believe about `plummeting' vaccination rates. Less than 1% of America's children are unvaccinated, and this number includes immunocompromised children who cannot be vaccinated.
The real trouble is more likely to be the number of adults who haven't been re-vaccinated for things like pertussis (which may not help anyway, since it's been show to be mutating around the globe).
Was his additional access above and beyond what the system administration had deemed valid?
And had the admin let him know this? I mean, reading all of the clock-and-dagger stuff that MIT was doing just makes me laugh. Why bother to chase him 'round the site when you can just send him written notice that he's been kicked off of the system? As far as I'm concerned, until they do that, he's allowed on.
Answer yes to those, and you have hacking.
Then my daughter (and the thousands of children with Gmail accounts) are also hackers and should be prosecuted by the DoJ. Do you think that is equally true?
The mere act of illegal or unpermitted access is a "hack".
No, it's not. Unless you're using the new definition, anyway.
He had to bypass a block to get into the system, and did so repeatedly.
So? What's your point? He has permission to be there. And unless you can show me that they told him, preferably in writing, that his access was being yanked, then he had every right to be there.
Explained in those terms, it's not hard to understand.
Too bad that those terms are:
a. not correct (See: Lori Drew), and
b. horrible (See: Child hackers).
I am sure that a grand jury of your peers could figure it out, unless you think that you are just way more smarter than they are.
Statistically, it's extremely likely that I'm smarter than your average juror. More importantly, it's a cinch that I'm significantly more knowledgeable about anything computer-related than your average juror.
hack, verb 1. to cut and clear (a way, path, etc.), as through undergrowth 2. to cough in short dry spasmodic bursts 3. to manipulate a computer program skilfully, esp, to gain unauthorized access to another computer system 4. to use a computer in a way that observers do not fully understand or do not like
Yes, because your average Grand Jury is totally capable of determining whether or not a prosecutor has met the burden of presenting enough evidence on a hacking charge.
This is totally true, as long as you're using the new definition of hacking, which is:
hack
vb
1. to cut and clear (a way, path, etc.), as through undergrowth
2. to cough in short dry spasmodic bursts
3. to manipulate a computer program skilfully, esp, to gain unauthorized access to another computer system
4. to use a computer in a way that observers do not fully understand or do not like
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
Re: Re: Cock Blocker
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
Re: Re:
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is an issue of harm here, and there isn't enough to implement a similar ID system for Facebook.
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
Re:
No. In the 'real world', where we have age limits on all sorts of things that are physically dangerous for children, business are routinely fined and punished for not taking reasonable steps to enforce age limits.
FTFY
On the post: Father: Why Isn't Facebook Keeping My Kid Off Its Site?
Re: Simple
And I have three children who all own laptops, so I do understand the trials and tribulations of raising children in the Internet era.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
But apparently you serve Kool-Aid. :P
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
On the post: Amazon Prepares For Showdown In California After Budget Includes Amazon Tax
Re: Re: Re: be fair
On the post: Public Health Official Forced To Shut Up On Twitter, Blog For Daring To Speak Honestly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll come
His point was that you should ask people to tell you their feelings about their health, and then use those anecdotes to make a medical decision.
If he wanted people to make a rational choice, he should have given numbers and sources, not emotion, emotion, emotion.
On the post: Public Health Official Forced To Shut Up On Twitter, Blog For Daring To Speak Honestly
Re: Re: Re: Re: actuallly..
So, to FTFY:
Given the serious health problems that would be created...
Given the serious health problems that may be created...
...by increasing numbers of parents refusing to vaccinate their children...
...by a low and steady number of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children...
...due to clueless anti-scientific fear-mongering...
...for many reasons, including religious reasons, allergies, immune issues, valid concerns, lax parenting, and clueless fear-mongering...
...you would think that a government Department of Health would be thrilled that one of its employees was defending vaccinations and talking back to someone who was arguing against vaccines.
...you would think that a government Department of Health would be thrilled that one of its employees was defending vaccinations and talking back to someone who was arguing against vaccines, as long as they were acknowledging the fact that vaccination rates among children remain both steady and high, and the less than 1% of parents who chose not to vaccinate include those who do so for valid medical reasons.
On the post: Public Health Official Forced To Shut Up On Twitter, Blog For Daring To Speak Honestly
Re: Re: Re: They'll come
You're advocating an emotional approach to scientific decisions? Really?
On the post: Public Health Official Forced To Shut Up On Twitter, Blog For Daring To Speak Honestly
Re: Re: actuallly..
Also, the debunked study in question? It's a straw man, only cited by people who are blindly pro-vaccine. People who actually choose not to vaccinate usually do so piecemeal (weighing each medication and it's attendant risks) and have neither read that paper nor give a shit what celebrities have to say about health care.
Last, but certainly not least, Mike's line about non-vaccinating parents causing actual public health issues is total bullshit. (Sorry, Mike. For once, you're wrong.) According to the CDC, immunizations have remained both steady and high and have not dropped, no matter what your favorite mainstream news source would have you believe about `plummeting' vaccination rates. Less than 1% of America's children are unvaccinated, and this number includes immunocompromised children who cannot be vaccinated.
The real trouble is more likely to be the number of adults who haven't been re-vaccinated for things like pertussis (which may not help anyway, since it's been show to be mutating around the globe).
On the post: Public Health Official Forced To Shut Up On Twitter, Blog For Daring To Speak Honestly
Re:
On the post: Public Health Official Forced To Shut Up On Twitter, Blog For Daring To Speak Honestly
Re: Better watch what I say
On the post: Public Health Official Forced To Shut Up On Twitter, Blog For Daring To Speak Honestly
Re: They'll come
On the post: The Lack Of A Legal Or Moral Basis For The Aaron Swartz Indictment Is Quite Troubling
Re: Re: Re:
And had the admin let him know this? I mean, reading all of the clock-and-dagger stuff that MIT was doing just makes me laugh. Why bother to chase him 'round the site when you can just send him written notice that he's been kicked off of the system? As far as I'm concerned, until they do that, he's allowed on.
Answer yes to those, and you have hacking.
Then my daughter (and the thousands of children with Gmail accounts) are also hackers and should be prosecuted by the DoJ. Do you think that is equally true?
The mere act of illegal or unpermitted access is a "hack".
No, it's not. Unless you're using the new definition, anyway.
He had to bypass a block to get into the system, and did so repeatedly.
So? What's your point? He has permission to be there. And unless you can show me that they told him, preferably in writing, that his access was being yanked, then he had every right to be there.
Explained in those terms, it's not hard to understand.
Too bad that those terms are:
a. not correct (See: Lori Drew), and
b. horrible (See: Child hackers).
I am sure that a grand jury of your peers could figure it out, unless you think that you are just way more smarter than they are.
Statistically, it's extremely likely that I'm smarter than your average juror. More importantly, it's a cinch that I'm significantly more knowledgeable about anything computer-related than your average juror.
On the post: The Lack Of A Legal Or Moral Basis For The Aaron Swartz Indictment Is Quite Troubling
Remember...
hack, verb
1. to cut and clear (a way, path, etc.), as through undergrowth
2. to cough in short dry spasmodic bursts
3. to manipulate a computer program skilfully, esp, to gain unauthorized access to another computer system
4. to use a computer in a way that observers do not fully understand or do not like
On the post: The Lack Of A Legal Or Moral Basis For The Aaron Swartz Indictment Is Quite Troubling
Re:
This is totally true, as long as you're using the new definition of hacking, which is:
hack
vb
1. to cut and clear (a way, path, etc.), as through undergrowth
2. to cough in short dry spasmodic bursts
3. to manipulate a computer program skilfully, esp, to gain unauthorized access to another computer system
4. to use a computer in a way that observers do not fully understand or do not like
Next >>