Again, I think this is missing the point. We're not talking about teachers and students conversing like old pals on Facebook. We're talking about teachers having the students as friends so they can make announcements that will show up in the student's feed.
Would SharePoint or something more 'professional' work? Probably. Would students actually go check those? Probably not. The allure of Facebook for teachers is that the students are already on it a lot. Announcements sent thru this space are almost guaranteed to be seen.
If you want something a bit separated from the normal friend-to-friend access, maybe the teachers could make 'business' pages and have the announcements and such go out thru that.
And for the 'accident slippage', I have that risk all the time. I have the boys in my Scout Troop (who are old enough to have a page) as friends. However, as soon as I add a new one, I put them in a group that has no access to my 'regular' posts.
"Shouldn't the contact be with the PARENTS of the children. If something is wrong with the school or the child, the parent should be contacted."
As a parent, I would not want to be notified every time there's a change in the homework assignment... or every time something changes in the project work.
And, as a Parent, I appreciate the help in giving my girls a place to practice responsibility in keeping up-to-date in a push-style announcement system. I see this style of "log in to get the announcements we send out" more and more at work... I think children could use some getting-used-to of that.
And there's nothing to stop me as a parent from being a friend of the teacher and being kept in the same loop. Everyone who already uses the tool will continue to use the same tool and get more out of it.
"Student/Teacher email/face to face would be sufficient for bullying. Anyone remember the Facebook bullying of children lately?!"
This is the kind of "OMG SOMEONE'S FEELINGS MIGHT GET HURT!!! HIDE THE KIDS!!!" reaction that has resulted in this kind of legislation in the first place. How about we use the tools and if there's a problem, we address the people and not the tool? You know... for once.
I don't disagree with what you say here, but I think you've missed part of the point.
We're not talking about whether or not a teacher should have a social connection with students outside of school. We're talking about whether or not this tool should be taken away considering that it can be (and is) used as a wonderful communication system. Students are already on Facebook a gazillion times a day... where better to put communications from teachers when you want to be relatively sure they're going to see it?
The 'risk' associated with this (sexual predation) is no greater here than any other communication medium. If the teachers have a 'school approved' website (like my girls' teachers do), 'inappropriate' communication could still be had with teachers wishing to engage in that act. They could code it or hide it just as easily there.
So, considering the benefit of good communication vs. the not-increased risk... why should it be taken away?
I tried to search for the answer on that but all I got was
Parent Content Error 404: Parental Responsibility Not Found!
Please refresh Parents to try again or turn on TV/Videogame/Computer to fill this need for Parents.
Yeah, because one AC is a representative sample of the rest of us. You know, I saw another AC (maybe it was a registered user) say how shooting someone was the answer to a problem. I guess we're all just violent, gun-totten psychopaths around here too, huh?
I love how other ACs jump at any opportunity to sling "freetard" around and declare anyone who reads this blog a criminal.
OK... I see what you mean. I'm not lawyerly enough to speak on applying the Section 230 to general neglence, so I'll concede that point to you until I hear otherwise.
However, I don't think you're going to have much luck demonstrating the prudent action required for negligence. If locking the WiFi were the prudent thing to do to the point that failing to do so is negligent, the manufacturers would be vicariously liable for making the default setting 'off'.
Perhaps hoping to avoid this limitation, the essay suggests that operators can be held liable under a general tort theory of negligence (meaning, it's not a copyright claim, just a general injury claim). But that approach immediately crashes against another legal wall. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act offers broad immunity from tort claims (including negligence) to providers of “interactive computer services” for claims arising from the activities of their users. The statute’s broad definition of interactive computer service includes “specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet.” (emphasis changed)
so, EFF (and Mike for repeating it) are wrong about Section 230 protections in relation to negligence?
”While we have issues with a lot of this, it's that last part that is super troubling. While this is not a legal ruling, just the fact that it's in a settlement will allow Corbin Fisher and others to wave the document around, warning others that if they want to claim that their WiFi was open -- a potentially legitimate defense -- they now risk a massive fine for so-called "negligence." This is insulting, dangerous and ridiculous. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons to leave your WiFi network open and almost none of them amount to "negligence," by any stretch of the imagination.” – Mike
Translation: my problem is with the fact that people ‘in-the-know’ are using a false claim of negligence to convince people that a legitimate defense is not available to them. These bullies would say “look at this case… that defense didn’t help THEM! So pay up!”
” Randazza claims that negligence claims are really a way of saying "you should have seen this coming." But that's ridiculous. It implies that anyone leaving open WiFi must assume that people will use that open WiFi for illegal activity. That's a huge leap. There are security reasons as to why you might want to secure your own WiFi... but there are also alternative ways to secure your home surfing and home network, while still leaving an open WiFi network. Randazza's statements suggest that's not possible and that anyone opening up their home WiFi should know that it's likely to be used for illegal activity.” - Mike
Look! Another example of Mike arguing about whether this is a case of negligence.
”But that's incredibly misleading (beyond the false use of "stealing"). First of all, those who have open WiFi should not have "seen it coming," because there are lots of perfectly legitimate reasons to offer and use open WiFi. Nothing about doing so should make you liable for what people do on the network, and that's exactly what the law says. Leaving your network open is not "inviting theft." That's simply misleading.” – Mike
And yet another argument over the validity of saying “it’s negligence”.
Yes, Mike talks about safe harbor laws… which does apply to negligence in relation to open WiFi (as he notes in the article). If I’m a provider (which the law does appear to support the definition being applied to someone with an open WiFi), and someone uses my service to break the law, I am not held liable (read: not negligent) for that act.
So, tell me where Mike didn’t talk about the general tort application of negligence in this case… I’ve already pointed to three examples where he did.
Interesting how you jumped up to call TDC a pirate... he was simply talking about arming himself in defense against being (wrongly) accused and accosted for what amounts to 'leaving the door open through which pirates might enter.' And, truthfully, he was probably commenting more on the apparent escalating tensions over the government becoming too powerful.
But hey, you get to accuse another TechDirt reader of being a pirate, so... yeah. Cheers.
Absolutely horrible, in my opinion. However, these businesses are just making their beds in the way that best suits them. They will, of course, have to sleep in that bed, so it's all on them.
Personally, I agree that these two businesses are being foolish and closed minded (and really, really HORRIBLE in the story I linked), but it's their choice. As a result of that choice, I would choose to not do business with them if they were in my area. That’s the price they pay for ‘being right’.
Re: Re: Re: It's merely that Swartsel doesn't care for the prediction.
Crap. Super-researching-fail... apparently I was right at first about Swartsel. And when I doubted myself and went and checked, all of my lazy, half-assed research yielded misinformation. Disregard my correction. [sigh]
Re: It's merely that Swartsel doesn't care for the prediction.
"Swartsel actually HEDGES it PRECISELY (emphasis added in upper case): "by SUGGESTING that stolen content available on rogue sites and elsewhere is just another substitute good, Roettgers is TACITLY arguing"."
Where in that article did he say "and this is a good thing"? Because that's what Swartsel is saying. I don't know why you think her use of "tacitly" is some kind of “hedging around actually accusing him of piracy-endorsement”... "tacitly arguing” is "saying it without words". So she says he's saying it.
"And having read the WHOLE piece by Roettger's (as I bet most haven't, you just swallow Mike's version), I think that's fair; Roettger's tone strikes me as more gloating than warning."
" Not sure what you read, but the full article that I read didn't sound like Roettger was endorsing anything at all. Sounded to me like he was showing you Hollywood's opinion on the death and decline of piracy and giving evidence that Hollywood is wrong about that decline.
” Mike is just putting out his usual exaggerated propaganda with inter-site trolling, again hoping to be noticed.”
Waitwaitwhat?!? Comprehension fail! Maybe the whole thing (since it references past articles and events and has no pictures) is a bit confusing to you, so let me back it up for you… Swartzel says that Roettger’s words = advocacy for piracy. Rotther’s words are almost exactly the same as one of Swartzel’s Boss’s statements. So Mike points out the irony of attacking an opponent on the grounds of ‘intellectual dishonesty’ for saying the same thing your side said earlier.
"Some here don't grasp the nuances of words, you just know who to dislike: it's all ad hom with you. You're just Mike's groupies who respond to his cue -- and get worked up on cue again when someone carps of Mike's hyperbole."
Accusing another of doing the same thing one does oneself seems to be contagious.
Let me translate that for you Blue... "it's all ad hom with you... [inserting ad hom attack against you now]". Blue, this is hypocrisy… hypocrisy, this is Blue. What? Oh, you’ve met.
Oh, and 'predicting that we'll get worked up when someone 'carps of [sic sic] Mike's hyperbole' doesn't work when you bait it. But if that's what you're aiming for –the very definition of trolling-, well then troll-on sir, troll-on.
Nothing of what you say is in error. What you just wrote is very well stated (even if I don't agree with all of it).
Now where was that when you made an unnecessary attack against Nina? Your initial post was pointless and hostile... didn't anyone ever tell you that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything? In this case, if you don't agree with Nina's "agenda", just shut up and don't read it. Pretty simple.
"I didn't attack Nina's artistic ability (she has shown the technical ability to produce a cartoon, which is more than many of us can manage)."
By saying simply "did you get a patent on truly horrible cartoons" without any elaboration, you are attacking her as an artist. And I'm not the only one who things this, judging by the reaction to your initial post.
"So for me, her cartoons,while techically well produced, generally are horrible because they either miss the mark, or intentionally misrepresent things to support the Techdirt position."
Again, then why do you read them? And if you're reading them just to come on here and attack her freetard agenda, that's a pretty sad hobby, in my opinion.
You know what I took out of that cartoon? "Gee, they sure do try to patent some pretty silly things out there... hahaha". That was about it. I didn't look at it as a rallying-cry to abolish the patent system. I looked at it in the same light as Carlin's 7 Dirty Words... a humorous take on censorship, not a call to abolish the FCC.
So, with all that, what was the point of coming on here and shooting your mouth off about how horrible her comics are?
"What I don't get is how nobody seems to notice that Nina glommed onto Techdirt like a life preserver when she was in the middle of dealing with her errors in the land of Sita. She hasn't gone away since, and instead has become sort of an in house propaganda tool. Another reason I find her toons to be horrible."
So this is your hangup? Your view that Nina is a propaganda tool? Really? Wow. Nice strawman, by the way.
She's a cartoon artist who illustrates her opinion through sarcasm. I don't think there's one of us (well, except you, apparently) who thinks Nina really believes these kinds of patents are commonplace. If I took cartoon artists that seriously, I would call the cops on RK Milholland because he's obviously going to kill the next person who pisses him off and would never own a cat again after reading Two Lumps.
Bottom line... it's a cartoon. You seem to be the one coming on here to make some kind of "us v them" point.
Well, to be clear, you're not wrong in your assertion that one cannot patent emotions... you're wrong in the thought that this was Nina's point.
She was illustrating the absurdity of patenting the expression of emotions (through silly typographical marks) and the attempt at enforcing that.
Now, to Squirrel's point... without you actually saying what you just did, I have no idea how you got from "Nina, did you get a patent on truly horrible cartoons?" to "You can't patent emotions". Your initial post was unduly critical and, well, assholish as you made an attack at Nina's artistic ability without actually stating why. Nothing illegal about that or anything... just makes you look like a dick with no actual point to share... just chiming in to be heard and try to hurt someone's feelings.
On the post: Teachers In Missouri Sue For The Right To 'Friend' Their Students On Facebook
Re:
Would SharePoint or something more 'professional' work? Probably. Would students actually go check those? Probably not. The allure of Facebook for teachers is that the students are already on it a lot. Announcements sent thru this space are almost guaranteed to be seen.
If you want something a bit separated from the normal friend-to-friend access, maybe the teachers could make 'business' pages and have the announcements and such go out thru that.
And for the 'accident slippage', I have that risk all the time. I have the boys in my Scout Troop (who are old enough to have a page) as friends. However, as soon as I add a new one, I put them in a group that has no access to my 'regular' posts.
As a parent, I would not want to be notified every time there's a change in the homework assignment... or every time something changes in the project work.
And, as a Parent, I appreciate the help in giving my girls a place to practice responsibility in keeping up-to-date in a push-style announcement system. I see this style of "log in to get the announcements we send out" more and more at work... I think children could use some getting-used-to of that.
And there's nothing to stop me as a parent from being a friend of the teacher and being kept in the same loop. Everyone who already uses the tool will continue to use the same tool and get more out of it.
This is the kind of "OMG SOMEONE'S FEELINGS MIGHT GET HURT!!! HIDE THE KIDS!!!" reaction that has resulted in this kind of legislation in the first place. How about we use the tools and if there's a problem, we address the people and not the tool? You know... for once.
On the post: Teachers In Missouri Sue For The Right To 'Friend' Their Students On Facebook
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We're not talking about whether or not a teacher should have a social connection with students outside of school. We're talking about whether or not this tool should be taken away considering that it can be (and is) used as a wonderful communication system. Students are already on Facebook a gazillion times a day... where better to put communications from teachers when you want to be relatively sure they're going to see it?
The 'risk' associated with this (sexual predation) is no greater here than any other communication medium. If the teachers have a 'school approved' website (like my girls' teachers do), 'inappropriate' communication could still be had with teachers wishing to engage in that act. They could code it or hide it just as easily there.
So, considering the benefit of good communication vs. the not-increased risk... why should it be taken away?
On the post: Teachers In Missouri Sue For The Right To 'Friend' Their Students On Facebook
Re: WTH!
On the post: MPAA Calls MPAA Intellectually Dishonest For Claiming That Infringement Is Inevitable
Re: Re:
I love how other ACs jump at any opportunity to sling "freetard" around and declare anyone who reads this blog a criminal.
Mission SO accomplished.
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, I don't think you're going to have much luck demonstrating the prudent action required for negligence. If locking the WiFi were the prudent thing to do to the point that failing to do so is negligent, the manufacturers would be vicariously liable for making the default setting 'off'.
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re:
Look! Another example of Mike arguing about whether this is a case of negligence.
And yet another argument over the validity of saying “it’s negligence”.
Yes, Mike talks about safe harbor laws… which does apply to negligence in relation to open WiFi (as he notes in the article). If I’m a provider (which the law does appear to support the definition being applied to someone with an open WiFi), and someone uses my service to break the law, I am not held liable (read: not negligent) for that act.
So, tell me where Mike didn’t talk about the general tort application of negligence in this case… I’ve already pointed to three examples where he did.
On the post: No, Having Open WiFi Does Not Make You 'Negligent' And Liable For $10,000
Re: Re:
But hey, you get to accuse another TechDirt reader of being a pirate, so... yeah. Cheers.
On the post: Woman Kicked Out Of A Restaurant For Complaining About Bartender On Twitter
Not on Twitter, but...
http://instinctmagazine.com/blog/nj-bridal-shop-refuses-to-sell-wedding-dress-to-woman-bec ause-same-sex-marriage-is-wrong?directory=100011
Absolutely horrible, in my opinion. However, these businesses are just making their beds in the way that best suits them. They will, of course, have to sleep in that bed, so it's all on them.
Personally, I agree that these two businesses are being foolish and closed minded (and really, really HORRIBLE in the story I linked), but it's their choice. As a result of that choice, I would choose to not do business with them if they were in my area. That’s the price they pay for ‘being right’.
On the post: Woman Kicked Out Of A Restaurant For Complaining About Bartender On Twitter
Re: Restaurant tweet.
Want news? Go to a news site, not a blog.
On the post: What Else Can We Patent?
Re: Re: your a bitch
On the post: Does The FBI Really Use Surveillance Vans With WiFi SSIDs Saying 'FBI_SURVEILLANCE_VAN'?
Re: Re: New ideas for SSID?
On the post: Yet Another 'Rogue Site' List Proposed, This Time With YouTube Right On Top
Re: Again, bend fact to suit bias...
Dammit darryl, back in your cage.
On the post: Does The FBI Really Use Surveillance Vans With WiFi SSIDs Saying 'FBI_SURVEILLANCE_VAN'?
I LOLed at this. I wonder if that would make it to Failbook.
On the post: MPAA Calls MPAA Intellectually Dishonest For Claiming That Infringement Is Inevitable
Re: Re: Re: It's merely that Swartsel doesn't care for the prediction.
On the post: MPAA Calls MPAA Intellectually Dishonest For Claiming That Infringement Is Inevitable
Re: Re: Re: It's merely that out_of_the_blue doesn't care for the prediction.
On the post: MPAA Calls MPAA Intellectually Dishonest For Claiming That Infringement Is Inevitable
Re: Re: It's merely that Swartsel doesn't care for the prediction.
On the post: MPAA Calls MPAA Intellectually Dishonest For Claiming That Infringement Is Inevitable
Re: It's merely that Swartsel doesn't care for the prediction.
" Not sure what you read, but the full article that I read didn't sound like Roettger was endorsing anything at all. Sounded to me like he was showing you Hollywood's opinion on the death and decline of piracy and giving evidence that Hollywood is wrong about that decline.
Waitwaitwhat?!? Comprehension fail! Maybe the whole thing (since it references past articles and events and has no pictures) is a bit confusing to you, so let me back it up for you… Swartzel says that Roettger’s words = advocacy for piracy. Rotther’s words are almost exactly the same as one of Swartzel’s Boss’s statements. So Mike points out the irony of attacking an opponent on the grounds of ‘intellectual dishonesty’ for saying the same thing your side said earlier.
Accusing another of doing the same thing one does oneself seems to be contagious.
Let me translate that for you Blue... "it's all ad hom with you... [inserting ad hom attack against you now]". Blue, this is hypocrisy… hypocrisy, this is Blue. What? Oh, you’ve met.
Oh, and 'predicting that we'll get worked up when someone 'carps of [sic sic] Mike's hyperbole' doesn't work when you bait it. But if that's what you're aiming for –the very definition of trolling-, well then troll-on sir, troll-on.
On the post: What Else Can We Patent?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
Now where was that when you made an unnecessary attack against Nina? Your initial post was pointless and hostile... didn't anyone ever tell you that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything? In this case, if you don't agree with Nina's "agenda", just shut up and don't read it. Pretty simple.
By saying simply "did you get a patent on truly horrible cartoons" without any elaboration, you are attacking her as an artist. And I'm not the only one who things this, judging by the reaction to your initial post.
Again, then why do you read them? And if you're reading them just to come on here and attack her freetard agenda, that's a pretty sad hobby, in my opinion.
You know what I took out of that cartoon? "Gee, they sure do try to patent some pretty silly things out there... hahaha". That was about it. I didn't look at it as a rallying-cry to abolish the patent system. I looked at it in the same light as Carlin's 7 Dirty Words... a humorous take on censorship, not a call to abolish the FCC.
So, with all that, what was the point of coming on here and shooting your mouth off about how horrible her comics are?
So this is your hangup? Your view that Nina is a propaganda tool? Really? Wow. Nice strawman, by the way.
She's a cartoon artist who illustrates her opinion through sarcasm. I don't think there's one of us (well, except you, apparently) who thinks Nina really believes these kinds of patents are commonplace. If I took cartoon artists that seriously, I would call the cops on RK Milholland because he's obviously going to kill the next person who pisses him off and would never own a cat again after reading Two Lumps.
Bottom line... it's a cartoon. You seem to be the one coming on here to make some kind of "us v them" point.
On the post: What Else Can We Patent?
Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
Well, to be clear, you're not wrong in your assertion that one cannot patent emotions... you're wrong in the thought that this was Nina's point.
She was illustrating the absurdity of patenting the expression of emotions (through silly typographical marks) and the attempt at enforcing that.
Now, to Squirrel's point... without you actually saying what you just did, I have no idea how you got from "Nina, did you get a patent on truly horrible cartoons?" to "You can't patent emotions". Your initial post was unduly critical and, well, assholish as you made an attack at Nina's artistic ability without actually stating why. Nothing illegal about that or anything... just makes you look like a dick with no actual point to share... just chiming in to be heard and try to hurt someone's feelings.
Next >>