Posts by Doctor Syntax 40413 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"start arresting every FB employee who sets foot inside the country."
So somebody working as a cleaner in some Facebook country visits NZ and you arrest them? On what basis? You can reasonable hold senior management responsible. Every employee? On what basis? How would you hope to prove them guilty of the offence? You're advocating hostage taking.
"Once you start making individuals in the _entire_ company structure susceptable to arrest for criminality"
So a nutter in one country livestreams his atrocity in one country and you arrest a cleaner in another? I don't think that would work. You'd have a bit of a problem proving mens rea. What you could do is look at the fact that the offending company has a legal presence in that other country and prosecute the company there, fining it on the basis of its world wide turnover.
"Murder is not black and white?"
The OP said "criminality" not "murder". One of the features of different legal systems is that different states get to define what's criminal and what isn't in their own jurisdictions. They don't all agree. You're trying to turn a general statement into a specific one. The downvotes should tell you people saw through that.
"I feel they have the right to rant. It's freedom of speech. I have the right not to listen as well"
You have a right to listen or not as you choose.
Of course TPTB have a right listen as wel if they choosel and to decide whether the ranter needs watching. It's hardly the same as mass surveillance if they choose to watch a rant someone has elected to broadcast to the world.
"So imagine an alternative world where Facebook had a 1 hour delay on uploaded videos. At 13:40 this nutter goes on the rampage, uploading video as he goes. At 14:40 his video goes live. At 16:00 the police figure out who he is. The video has already been live for over an hour."
It depends on what the one hour is used for. A buffer to give time to stop it being distributed at all means t doesn't go live.
Presumably the alarm went up fairly quickly. If FaceBook, YouTube and the rest sere prepared to set up a system to cooperate there might not even be a need to set up a huge operation to take advantage of that hour to check every video from everywhere. They'd have an hour, or the best part of that, to check what's in the buffer from that geographical area (OK VPNs could be a problem) and feed it back to the police instead.
"If the shooter – and the ones that will come after him – couldn't be sure that his video would ever make its way to the public, that there was a very high likelihood that it would be flagged during the upload process and stopped – would he had been sufficiently driven to carry out his actions?"
Who knows? Some would, some wouldn't. There's a long history of atrocities being carried out without live streaming. On the whole the probability is that he would. What's more concerning is the incentive to copy-cats and a general lowering of the mental barriers that prevent people from doing this. It's not so much that preventing the upload would have discouraged him but it might have prevented others.
One thing is clear. Some nutters are apt to advertise their mental state in the ways the article points out. It might be more productive to devote resources to these more than on profiling on the basis of appearance anyone who happens to walk in from of some CCTV camera to "predict" whether they're going to commit a crime or on trying to hoover up everyone's business. It's not as if they're hiding what they're doing.
Let me add a serious point to this. Whoever designs these switching arrangements probably thinks that this is what the customers want, but have never asked them. Whoever here has designed user interfaces for applications: how do you know you're not in the same boat? How do you avoid getting there?
"ND accompanied by a signed waiver of their 14 day cooling off rights."
I doubt that would have any standing (I'm assuming this is for UK consumer rather then B2B or anything in that lawless place over there) other than to make them thing again before you go ahead. As has been said here when discussion EULAs, statutory legislation overrules contract law and consumer rights are statutory.
"We then have to give them an emphatic 'NO', and ask them to re-write the list, and email to it to our ticket system, and put some details on it. They then invariably say 'Oh, just one more thing' as we are trying to get out of the door."
Tell them that if won't raise the tickets you'll have to and there's an extra charge for every ticket you have to raise. Sorry, company rules. More than my jobsworth etc.
"always needing to use someone else's printer because her's isn't working"
Always cheaper to use somebody else's ink. And maybe somebody else bought more expensive paper as well. Are you sure she has a printer?
Said daughter of mine now works from home for a firm based about 150 miles away. They provided her with computers and printer. My HP all-in-one printer is of considerable vintage. Superficially "her" (ie. firm's) new, shiny, printer looks quite like it but all black. The HP badge on mine looks more solid than any component of hers. One day she asked me to look at the printer. There was some problem with the paper tray. It looked like no amount of fiddling with it was going to fix it and would most likely break it. In the end the whole printer got taken back to head office on her next visit and swapped. How are the mighty fallen.
"Student computers are a pain, they usually crash just as the critical disertation is finished and needs printing and no backup exists."
Even more so when the student's one of your own kids.
Again a long time ago, daughter arrived home after finishing her PhD. Backup was no problem. In fact all she had was the disk with her data on it as she'd used a departmental PC. Trouble is it was one of those proprietary disks so I had to buy a drive to get her data transferred onto something more portable.
Have an upvote, Nick, you got there before me.
I'm sure there was a lot of heavy lifting after the event but I there's obviously no point in sharing credit when they can avoid it. And they're hardly going to admit they let him go to the US without tipping him off that they knew he was going to be arrested.
"The Open Source community would have a harder time writing apps for proprietary services such as banking, Uber, etc that many consumers would expect."
A Huawei or a combined Huawei/Sumsung OS would represent so much of the new phone market that the proprietary services would provide their own apps.
The rest of the Spring Statement could do with scrutiny. He seems to have made a statement that MPs should compromise of Brexit that lead the Beeb at least to get so excited they more or less ignored anything else he said. It sounds as if he might have been trying to distract attention from whatever bad news he might have hidden in there.
Is there actually a contract in some cases? AIUI a contract is an agreement to provide goods and/or services in return for a consideration. A consideration is usually payment. If the user pays nothing what then is the consideration? If it's the provision of the user's data then exactly what would be the breach of contract if the vendor uses that data? Certainly until precedent could be established it could prove very expensive to sue as it might be hard to establish exactly what implied contract might be in place.
Another aspect is that as far as consumers are concerned EULAs may already be void right-pond as consumer protection is stronger here.
"if anyone abused the situation, it would be local yobs"
Well, you couldn't expect the Mail to tell its readers their teenage kids could go in there, shoot up drugs, nick anything not welded down and set the place on fire.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
