The problem isn't just equifax, it's that identity theft is nearly impossible to fully recover from. One year of free monitoring is an absolute joke. We need to be able to get new SSN numbers in the case of identity theft. Every identifying piece that's permanent is an absolute nightmare when breached, it's the same reason why biometric passwords are a terrible idea.
People are mixing up criminal and civil law here. Defamation is a civil suit, and therefor parents can indeed be held liable for their little bastards. You're one of the first people to always point out that slapping on "on the internet" is not enough, so how exactly is this different from a kid throwing a baseball into a neighbor's window? As far as I understand the law (INAL), the parents have to cough up the money should someone bring a civil suit, no?
Now, in a criminal case you would right, parents normally are not held liable for their kids except under extreme circumstances.
The big question this case leaves unanswered is why on earth did the parents of the bullied kid not simply ask Facebook to remove the fake profile? They are usually very swift about these things. Why should they be allowed to sue the other kid's parents 11 months later, when they had this avenue open to them the entire time?
true, but even politics change with enough money involved, or how else do you explain special interest groups and our peculiar campaign financing methods?
I think both Masnick and Tyson are right. The problem with start-up culture that is worth pointing out is that the prospect of getting rich quick draws a disproportionate number of smart and educated people away from other areas of research, which are at least as important to progress and society as anything Silicon Valley does.
The "throwing things against the wall and see what sticks" method works for Silicon Valley, but a lot of other fields require years of dedication to a subject matter, and it looks like the number of people willing to do that is shrinking, at least compared to the number of people looking for a quick payday with apps. This brain drain is worth criticizing, though belittling apps is not the way to do that.
Chalk me up as one who believes it is. You don't know the first thing about surveys. 1480 people are more than adequate if they're chosen correctly. Given this was conducted by Pew this was probably done correctly.
Here is another page specifically created for the idiots who keep bringing up sample size when they don't like a study: http://people-press.org/methodology/
I just hope that when this is all over and he finally gets acquitted he sues the crap out of the DA's office or whoever else is responsible for this travesty.
But this story IS about the amount she's suing over, not about her being right. It's at best vindictive but most likely pure greed to sue over these kinds of amounts. I understand she isn't actually getting this kind of money but her lawyer carefully laid out a strategy to maximize a settlement (likely a strategy that maximizes his personal payday but that's what you get when you team up with a lawyer).
If she really only cared about her pictures not being released she would have asked the doc to take them down and if she really suspects mischief and is afraid of a serial offender she could notify a supervisory board of some kind.
This is the same as someone suing McDonald's over too hot coffee - yes you may be in the right but the reaction is over the top.
Pretty funny to see spam posting on an article related to the nuisance of ads. I should patent automated spam posting in forums and sue these bastards.
I'm not sure this will get through to you as you seem to be in a state of partisan rage, but I'll try:
Rep. King did not utter the words "we should block immigration reform", but that is exactly what he's trying to do. He's been ranting against immigrants for as long as he's been in congress, so it's pretty obvious what he's doing here. He picked up some unfounded rumor linking the bombing to an immigrant and "we need to look at the bigger picture" means stalling whatever legislation was about to be passed.
Nowhere did this article claim that he uttered those words. It's Mike's conclusion that this is what he's trying to do, and not only is it a pretty obvious conclusion, he even provided the actual quote so that you can come to your own conclusion, so there's absolutely zero reason why you should throw a hissy fit. Nobody was being lied to here.
That's very interesting and I never thought of dilution of trademark in these terms, but I still don't think it really applies here. Let's take the core argument in bold:
But because of the inveterate tendency of the human mind to proceed by association, every time they think of the word “Tiffany” their image of the fancy jewelry store will be tarnished by the association of the word with the strip joint.
Makes sense in the Tiffany example, but less so in the Ben & Cherry's case. First of all, because they slightly change the names (including the product names) it is clear that it is meant to be a parody, so when you see the actual "Ben & Jerry" name it is less likely that you think of the porno you recently saw and much less likely that you need to put in any mental effort in figuring out which brand it refers to. Now, if there was a "Ben & Jerry's" advertising in the local paper that's actually an Escort Service, that dilution by tarnishment argument would be much more straight forward. I think by simply having changed the names they'll probably be ok with a parody defense.
You might have a point if the Pirate Party actually was for people who like to pirate stuff. Seeing as it's really easy to find out what they're actually about you're either incredibly lazy or willfully spouting nonsense to derail the conversation.
First of all, as mentioned by Designerfx, Der Spiegel is hardly a credible source for news relating to the Pirate Party as they've been fighting them tooth and nails for the past two years.
Secondly, the fact that they're turning their focus on less radical solutions that actually have a chance of being part in negotiations with the established parties is a sign of maturity, not that they're "losing their way".
Their constituents want to see some kind of return on their "investment" (vote), and in order for that to happen the Pirate Party needs to actually get things done. It's only logical that they focus on things that stand a chance of getting done instead of only the long-term pie in the sky ideals.
The falling poll numbers are a direct reflection of their inability to shape the political landscape. To counter this, they need political victories, so they need to pick the fights that they can win.
Repeating the message ad nausea won't do much to change the behavior of officers. There needs to be some kind of penalty for overreaching. Only if they're afraid of consequences will they stop the harassment.
I think the dilution of trademark claim has legs. Rimowa makes pricy but quality products. While I probably won't want to use a replica DVD box as luggage, seeing a flimsy plastic case break at the first drop to the floor certainly doesn't reinforce Rimowa's image of quality products.
Can't blame him for trying to game a broken system for his advantage. Had it worked, him and his children and grandchildren never would have to work another day in their lives. If he seriously thought he was in the RIGHT however then he's a complete idiot.
That would be a sensible thing to say. It would still be double standard though, because Apple is either directly or indirectly involved in suing painters over the use of their patented brush.
(untitled comment)
Re: Re:
Now, in a criminal case you would right, parents normally are not held liable for their kids except under extreme circumstances.
The big question this case leaves unanswered is why on earth did the parents of the bullied kid not simply ask Facebook to remove the fake profile? They are usually very swift about these things. Why should they be allowed to sue the other kid's parents 11 months later, when they had this avenue open to them the entire time?
Re: Been here, done that
Re: Re:
They're both right
The "throwing things against the wall and see what sticks" method works for Silicon Valley, but a lot of other fields require years of dedication to a subject matter, and it looks like the number of people willing to do that is shrinking, at least compared to the number of people looking for a quick payday with apps. This brain drain is worth criticizing, though belittling apps is not the way to do that.
Re: Re: Re: Those figues are not very convincing !
Of course, if you doubt their methodology, you could have just read on: http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/26/few-see-adequate-limits-on-nsa-surveillance-program/2/#about- the-survey
Here is another page specifically created for the idiots who keep bringing up sample size when they don't like a study: http://people-press.org/methodology/
(untitled comment)
Re:
If she really only cared about her pictures not being released she would have asked the doc to take them down and if she really suspects mischief and is afraid of a serial offender she could notify a supervisory board of some kind.
This is the same as someone suing McDonald's over too hot coffee - yes you may be in the right but the reaction is over the top.
Re: See
Re: Your headline is an outright lie he said no such thing
Rep. King did not utter the words "we should block immigration reform", but that is exactly what he's trying to do. He's been ranting against immigrants for as long as he's been in congress, so it's pretty obvious what he's doing here. He picked up some unfounded rumor linking the bombing to an immigrant and "we need to look at the bigger picture" means stalling whatever legislation was about to be passed.
Nowhere did this article claim that he uttered those words. It's Mike's conclusion that this is what he's trying to do, and not only is it a pretty obvious conclusion, he even provided the actual quote so that you can come to your own conclusion, so there's absolutely zero reason why you should throw a hissy fit. Nobody was being lied to here.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Makes sense in the Tiffany example, but less so in the Ben & Cherry's case. First of all, because they slightly change the names (including the product names) it is clear that it is meant to be a parody, so when you see the actual "Ben & Jerry" name it is less likely that you think of the porno you recently saw and much less likely that you need to put in any mental effort in figuring out which brand it refers to. Now, if there was a "Ben & Jerry's" advertising in the local paper that's actually an Escort Service, that dilution by tarnishment argument would be much more straight forward. I think by simply having changed the names they'll probably be ok with a parody defense.
Re: Where's my free stuff?
normal growing pains
Secondly, the fact that they're turning their focus on less radical solutions that actually have a chance of being part in negotiations with the established parties is a sign of maturity, not that they're "losing their way".
Their constituents want to see some kind of return on their "investment" (vote), and in order for that to happen the Pirate Party needs to actually get things done. It's only logical that they focus on things that stand a chance of getting done instead of only the long-term pie in the sky ideals.
The falling poll numbers are a direct reflection of their inability to shape the political landscape. To counter this, they need political victories, so they need to pick the fights that they can win.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Re:
Re: So many false assumptions, it’s not even funny…
(untitled comment)
Re:
More comments from illuminaut >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by illuminaut.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt