They can... And I think they should... Put a big red polygon there with the label "Indian Government Declared Sensitive Area" right on top.

... we should all be worried the USA has nukes too.

Yes we should. Especially since the US has shown it is willing to use them against another country in anger. Not once but twice.

I predict that's the way things will be in the future: "Don't want to see ads? Then, leave. We already provide 'free,' content. We will not provide content for ABSOLUTELY free."

If you have advertising on your site, then your content isn't free and it is false advertising to claim it as such. It simply is being paid by proxy. A more apt statement would be advertising supported.

For all the whining here, the option they've taken is actually the least intrusive.

And the best response that could be given would be to blackhole everything EU. They want to be forgotten, then let's forget them. Removing all links to everything EU including businesses, government and humanitarian sites would fit the bill. Restrict the crawler preventing new EU stuff from being indexed would solve the problem for the future.

The EU wants to be forgotten, let's see how the EU economy survives that.

What is the solution? Other than allowing insurance companies to price such considerations into their policies, I don't see one.

You seem to be eliminating the most powerful tool in the box. The insurance should reflect the risk. Another tool is requiring FULL disclosure by realtors trying to sell such a structure. Lastly, build sensibly taking the risk into account. If you are building into a flood zone, require the structure to be elevated above the base flood elevation. If you are building in known hurricane territory, require wind resistant building on top of the elevations. For landslide, require the developer to stabilize the slope BEFORE issuing the building permits for the structure. Had that happened in this case, those buildings wouldn't have been built because the cost to stabilize the hillside would be astronomical pricing the land out of development.

There is a far, far easier way assuming the government really wanted to get the individual who did this.

All federal internet traffic goes through Mount Weather, VA in the East (Denton, TX in the west). Every activity done right down to mouse clicks and keyboard keystrokes are recorded with no expectation of "privacy". It is in fact a part of the agreement you sign every time you take the required network security training every year. So finding out who was accessing Wikipedia at the time of the edits becomes extremely easy.

I know this because I have had access to the federal systems for years. It is a job requirement. I do GIS (among other things) and every time I send a map across the federal network I get a call from someone out of Mt. Weather asking what it is and why I am sending it. So yes, they can identify, by user, who is doing what.

Better yet, from TFS...

That means there's a good chance we're about to get a look into the ins and outs of Google's advertising backbone: what information is shared with whom, and when.

Google: Judge, we are filing this motion to seal any and all documents for trade secret and proprietary information reasons. To release them would do irreparable harm to our business.

Judge: Granted

No. Deforestation is not the problem. The problem is the entire area is a natural slide area because of the soil type. People encroached on that slide area and expected it to be stable (much the same as they encroach on floodplains and barrier islands and wetlands).

No, what "caused" the loss of life more than anything was people moving into a high risk area.

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.