That's true. What should be a consideration is how much the affected parties were harmed. Did wage suppression really only cost them $5000 each? Not even per year, but each, over the entire time it was happening. That's where damages should start. Then you should multiply it, because you want getting caught doing the bad thing not to simply result in having to pay for it, because then hey, why not do the bad thing? We only have to pay for it if we get caught, and we might not.

Basically, make a rational analysis of the "should I do evil" calculus come out "No."

We're not talking companies, we're talking the federal government where there are records retention laws, and we're talking about an IRS director's emails, some of which almost certainly met the definition of "records" under the law. Some things which are merely good practice for "companies" are mandatory for federal agencies.

No, the sensible version of this would be that the drive failed, so they recycled it. That's completely reasonable. Happens all the time. The UNreasonable and unbelievable part is that those emails existed ONLY on that hard drive. If that really happened, there should be lots of documentation including who got fired for it.

Good point, though, in anything I've been involved in that got reported in the news (nothing work related, I'm thinking of a climbing accident that happened while I was in the park) the first details reported in the news were astoundingly wrong.

Which, given that you're playing apologetics for it, presumably you do.

I don't think it's that, it's that in some people's minds, the pendulum has swung too far. I read that some beauty contestant is getting lambasted for saying women should learn self defense. Claims are being made that that promotes "rape culture". It doesn't, it's just the commonsense realization that while in the ideal world there wouldn't be bad people, in the actual world, there are. It's fine to work towards the ideal world, but we also need to live in the real one.

To put another spin on it, there's a trail around here that used to be a great place to run. It's become a great place to get a beating and your phone/ipod/wallet stolen. I could go run there with my expensive earbuds and $600 phone, secure in the knowledge that I have every moral right to do so unmolested, but I don't. I run with my cheaper earbuds and an iPod shuffle in places muggings don't happen.

So can public schools. My public school experience, while not really horrible, was sufficiently unpleasant that I mostly tuned out and almost didn't graduate on time. I came to my senses early enough in the last year to maintain grades just good enough to get me out.

Maybe I was just a loser. Then again, I went on to a 3.9+ undergrad GPA, and later a Masters degree. I blame that crappy public school for my graduating college 6 years late. If it had sucked less, I'd have gone straight to college and probably wouldn't have had to pay for it.

I don't think the answer is banning homeschooling or banning public or traditional private schools. It's setting sufficiently high standards. If you can meet them, great. Open a school.

Agreed. If you're worried about getting internet to people who don't have clean water, or are worried about the local militia rounding them up, you've got your priorities wrong.

Around here, you can educate them yourself by opening your own state approved school and following certain rules. That's what homeschooling looks like here. You can't just "teach them yourself". Obviously, things may differ in your jurisdiction.

The downside is having to prove that they didn't hire you for that reason. Who the best candidate is is subjective. Did I not hire tlambert because he has $DISEASE, or because the other guy was a better candidate?

And as the other reply points out, lawsuits take time. I don't know about you, but I actually need money regularly. Sitting on my butt while a lawsuit wends its way through court is not something I can afford to do.

Cite, please.

The whole reason we vaccinate is because it's been shown that fewer people get sick or die when we do. Yes, there are sometimes adverse reactions, but it's worse when we don't.

Also, the "free" education is neither free nor voluntary. You pay for it in taxes. You send your kids or you go to jail, unless send them to a different, approved school.

We don't ban alcohol because there are alcoholics. We ban gambling because some people are using the law to enforce their own dubious moral code.

Right, so when you get a disease that people are irrationally afraid of and no one will hire you, then what?

The whole throw away privacy argument relies on everyone being more or less rational. Even if everyone is, maybe you get diagnosed with a disease that's going to kill you in a few years, but you'll be functional up until the end. Plenty of people won't hire you just because they won't hire someone who is only going to be there for a couple years regardless of the reason.

We aren't taking the status quo, building a whole new layer on it, and pretending it'll work. That's how it's different.

http://theppa.org/

Unfortunately (if you're a poker player), it's not an issue the general public cares much about, so not much has happened.

Personally, I think it's stupid that I can go blow $20 on a movie and popcorn, or $more drinking in the bar for a night, but if I want to put $50 on a poker site and play it for months, well, that's just gotta be stopped!

It is never gambling when the odds are biased in one sides favour, then it is fraud and losing.

Absolute nonsense. It's might fraud if they tell you the odds are even. They don't.

Ironically, some of the worst odds you'll find are in state run lotteries.

Do you really mean to tell me that the IRS uses an email system that keeps the only copy of a user's email on the user's PC, and the user's PC isn't backed up? In the era of records laws, retention requirements, etc?