But purposely didn't tell the most important party in the chain.... The customer that may have been affected! As I stated above, it isn't like the thieves put a metatag on the stolen data saying "this stolen data brought to you by Catch of the Day". So identity theft resulting from this breech wouldn't be connected to them assuming the thieves even get caught.. And by then it is too late.

Customers deserve a right to be informed IMMEDIATELY of breeches in security that may have an effect on them to alert them to watch for suspicious activity or afford them the opportunity to cancel the card before it racks up the outrageous charges.

No one noticed which means it was the correct plan and course of action to follow.

No one noticed because they didn't know it was Catch of the Day that was the source of their stolen data that may have ruined their credit. And when their customers leave in droves because of this breech of trust, does that sound like a good business decision?

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

You may have patience and understanding with this kind of corporate malfeasance but I don't. I now know to stay leagues away from this company and to inform everyone I know about their nonchalance attitude towards data security and customer notifications of breeches.

A few years later and there is still no 'damage'...

Nobody knows that. It isn't like the stolen data has a meta tag stating "this stolen data brought to you by Catch of the Day". People could have had their credit ruined because of this breach and never have connected it to the source because of Catch of the Day's security by obscurity.

Any company that uses this tactic of reputation management deserves to lose ALL its customers because they can't be trusted to operate in a responsible way with your data.

If anyone needs these cameras it is Ohio. Some the the worst drivers I have ever come across...

http://www.youtube.com/channel...

Using real identities can vastly improve internet behavior. For example, a forum I frequent recently switched from anonymous posting to Facebook accounts. Overnoght the forum changed from endless spam and trolling to respectful discourse between actual people.

The same happened with my hometown paper but the reverse is true. They went from a moderated (meaning the spam and abusive posts were never posted since posts had to be pre-approved) with lots of insightful comments to almost no comments what-so-ever and the few that were commenting were doing so from fake FB accounts. So the noise ratio went way up on the comments they were getting. In short, they replaced their working moderation system with the FB system thinking the same way you do and got exactly the opposite effect.

No... No... No... No! Those are his clones. The REAL Adolph Hitler lives in Argentina...

If you read what he posted as well as listen, you would see that he hooked it up 10 minutes into the call already. So the first 10 minutes are not recorded.

As for recording in general, you are correct that it varies wildly from state to state. Some have no requirement to inform, some have a requirement that at least one party be informed and others have it that all parties must be informed. That is why that recording saying, "This call may be monitored for quality assurance" is always given out on customer facing lines.

It should be noted that there are exceptions to the notification requirement most notably 911 and other emergency services phones don't have to notify callers that they are being recorded.

And add to that the transaction fees charged to merchants as I said below. They are ridiculous. Many merchants where I live have a minimum charge you can make with a card. Something like $10 or $20.

So you are the reason that a lot of stores have a minimum charge amount for credit / debit charges. The transaction fees charged to merchants are ridiculous and so are ATM fees. Until these fees are reduced, you will never see a truly cashless society. And that doesn't include those that have less trust of banks than they do of governments.

I am agreeing with what you said putting aside the beta/VHS blunder....

But there is a more direct way it happened that Windows got more market share... Namely, it is what comes with most, if not all, new consumer x86 based computers. It is just about impossible to get a supported Linux computer and by supported I mean one that will solve problems with the programming not just the hardware.

So to recap, it isn't solely marketing that gives MS their dominance but their partnering with OEMs and to a lesser extent their abuse of their monopoly to keep competing operating systems off new machines.

OK... Let's just burst your anti-government bubble there..

They need to ask permission because the FAA specifically banned such behavior last month.

Gone are the days, when pursuit of happiness was understood as a natural right granted to each human being not by their government, but by the Creator.

To start with, you are confusing your documents. The quote you give is from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution which is the document establishing our government. Next, you assume that there is a "Creator". All I got to say is show me. Lastly, your rights end where others rights begin. It would be pure anarchy otherwise as I will demonstrate below.

Today one must get a permission to drive a car, carry a weapon, perform in costume [LINK OMITTED], or, indeed, to fly a drone.

Drive a car: So in your world you would allow everyone, regardless of demonstrated ability to do so, drive a car on public roads? Sounds like a plan to me... A plan for death and mayhem that is. Besides, this is State government not Federal requiring the license. If you had actually read the Constitution, you would know that States have far more power to regulate than the Feds.

Carry a weapon: Again in your world, convicted violent offenders should be allowed weapons even while they are in prison for murder? I also bet you believe that you should also be allowed nuclear weapons too right?

Perform in costume: That is a city ordinance. Again, not fed and not even State. I am sure NYC has a reason for that ordinance, take it up with them.

Fly a drone: There have been many instances where these drones have caused passenger airliners to almost crash. The more they are allowed, the higher the probability will become that one will cause a crash. One can only hope you are on the plane that crashes because of it. Again, your rights end where others begin. That is the job of these agencies. They oversee the public spaces such as airspace.

And finally, may I make a suggestion? If you really, really want less government, then move to Somalia. I am sure they will welcome you with open arms (pun intended).

or people could stop buying from tombstone vendors that are complete idiots. Some vendors are smart enough to buy a properly licensed object (of the gazillions out there) and embed it into the memorial. Problem solved.

Did you really think this is the first time someone wanted to do something like this? The parents just need to stop shopping at Billy Bob's Discount Tombstone & Tackle Shack if they want something atypical.

or people could stop buying DC Comic's shit for being the dicks they are since they could very well license it to them but are refusing. Of course, that will never fly because of asshats like you that can't see a parent's grief in their murdered child.

Talk to me about "licensing" when it is YOUR child.

And the insurance is the other way round. The named drivers get fully covered to drive the insured car, and they also get bare legal minimum insurance driving another car if they don't own it. But if somebody else drives the insured car, it is up to them to get insurance.

That is not true. If the driver is not the owner, but was authorized to drive the car by the owner, then the owner's insurance covers. It doesn't matter if the driver was named on the policy. If the driver drives without the owner's permission, then not only is it grand theft auto but it is considered uninsured. I know because I was hit by a driver in a stolen car where the thief ran away in all the confusion. Luckily I had full coverage and my insurance paid my medicals. Had I just had liability then I would be left holding the bills.

If you drive a car that is not covered by insurance, whether you have insurance on another car or not, it is still considered uninsured.

Having said all that, since automotive insurance is a state thing I suspect the laws governing the insurance varies by state. What I said above is correct for my state.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Brennan wrote, "The most disturbing aspect of the Court's decision today is that it appears to give no weight to the citizen's interest in freedom from suspicionless investigatory seizures."

The same can be said of random drug tests.

I tend to agree with you but not to the paranoid extent you are taking it.

More to the point, I can see this being touted for home security (being able to enable / disable security systems from your phone, turn on and off lights, etc.) but that won't take off until they can guarantee the security of the Internet (which is something no company can do). As we all know, anything exposed to the Internet is just that... Exposed! To think it won't get exploited is putting your head in the sand.

Besides, for any of that stuff you don't need it exposed to the internet. Just a local network that blocks all devices that haven't been programmed into the router. That way when you lock yourself out of your house you can unlock the doors with your phone while you are standing outside. Who in their right mind would want to unlock their doors when they are on vacation?