Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:I'm not buying the "confused grandma" defense (Score 3, Interesting) 160

So some group known as "ops" is going to "convert" a message from the classified message system to "the unclassified email system"? That's go-to-prison stuff right there.

No, sanitizing classified material and releasing unclassified versions is their job. No "go to prison" there.

'Go-to-prison' comes in when someone orders a subordinate to send them a copy classified material over an insecure communications system. It also disproves any "I didn't know" defense.

Comment Re:total bullshit? (Score 0) 160

Should she have switched to a government-provided e-mail account? Probably. I don't say, "absolutely," specifically because of the high profile leaks ...

Leaks or not, the law says she was supposed to use her secure government-provided email for work. She ignored that law.

As an aside, Governor Palin used private e-mail for government functions too,

Sarah Palin was not in a position to deal with classified material on a regular basis, and therefore the only laws she violated were public records laws. Clinton violated those laws as well as security regulations.

Comment Re:Ignorant fucking asshole (Score 1) 168

but unless someone actually got hit I think the endangerment charge is overblown.

Endangerment doesn't mean "did cause damage", it means "creating a dangerous situation". And "reckless" is an important word.

You can endanger others on a daily basis, like by driving a car (which creates a danger to pedestrians, for example) but not be guilty of "reckless endangerment" because you are taking appropriate actions to mitigate the risk. You obey the basic speed limit, you signal lane changes, you don't use a handheld cellphone while driving, etc.

And just like for drivers, "reckless endangerment" doesn't require an actual injury or accident, only the disregard for safety. Someone who speeds through town and leads the cops on a merry chase at high speed may not have hit anyone, but he's certainly committed "reckless endangerment", just like a pilot who buzzes his neighbor's house does.

when someone does something stupid and not allowed in a public place like that the response is usually to simply ask them to stop and not do it again

Yes, sans injuries or accident, that is often how such a violation is handled. But when there is an accident, you've reached the point where it becomes appropriate to take some legal action just so the notoriety of the accident followed by no legal response doesn't give people the idea that doing the same thing is ok.

The fact that he disrupted the event was at issue,

No, the fact that he operated his drone in a reckless manner that endangered people was the issue. You can disrupt an event without committing "reckless endangerment".

Comment Re:Speed isn't Everything (Score 1) 160

the municipal broadband is on a level playing field with Comcast that got a monopoly for many years to bootstrap it

Non-exclusive franchises are not monopolies. Municipal broadband gets to write their own rules for what service they can provide, Comcast did not. The field is not "level".

So no, it REALLY, REALLY (i'm for real about this) is a price vs. performance decision.

Yes, it is, and one of the prices that has to be considered is the tax money that is already going to cover the losses of the municipal operation and the interest from any loans that were used to issue bonds to cover the buildout.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 240

I know you're sentiments are well founded, but in all likelihood, what we are typing right here, right now will be on our records forever.

Yes, it will. Are you trying to equate posting here with sending naked pictures of yourself to 14 year old girls?

I'll point out that this UK list is nothing unusual. Every time someone calls the cops on someone in the US, that information goes into a database they can access for future reference. That's for both the suspect AND the person who calls. "Have we dealt with this person before" is a question that is important when considering whether the activity is simply "stupid" or has risen to the level of "harassment" or "intentional". That applies to both sides. "We've been called to this house and spoken to Bob about his loud parties three times now, we need to write a ticket instead of a warning", as well as "Frank has called us about the UFOs buzzing his house five times now, maybe we need to give social services a call."

Comment Re:The Power of the State. (Score 1) 240

Why are you confused?

Because someone is claiming that basic "human rights" are being violated and the kid is being oppressed. I want to know what "human right" we're talking about. Can you tell me? Is there a basic "human right" to send pictures of your willy to any girl you know? What has the world come to when we make such nonsense a "human right"?

I won't be scarred for life and neither will this girl.

You don't know this, and it isn't your place to judge on her behalf. Nobody was thrown into a gulag over this.

You may personally not mind if someone breaks into your house and takes your television. You think you watch too much TV anyway, and that person obviously needs the money or TV more than you do. But that's not a valid argument for saying that burglary isn't wrong, just as you not minding if people send you naked pictures of themselves is an argument against it being wrong when others are the recipients.

Now, if the kid didn't want the picture distributed by her, he should've known better.

Wait a minute. He can't be expected to "know better" when it comes to whether it is appropriate to send the picture in the first place, but he is supposed to "know better" that the girl would know how to bypass the "delete automatically" feature of snapchat? "Should have known better" is a two-edged sword here.

You have a brain, use it. Justify why you think such a lasting mark like a predator list is warranted

It wasn't a lasting mark on a predator list.

for 'a' picture sent probably to a crush.

I have a "crush" on your teenage daughter. You won't mind if I send her naked pictures of myself, then? She can just delete them if she doesn't want to see them, and it won't cause her any harm, right? It's harmless fun.

This seems like a case of 'stupid kid' not a case of a hardened pervert, and should be treated as such.

That's why he got such a light slap on the wrist and isn't standing in a dock facing a judge. And nobody is saying he should be.

Comment Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score 1) 240

You're arguing that it's acceptable to have laws that give children who make mistakes a criminal record.

No, I'm arguing that at 14 he should already know that what he did is wrong, and that he demonstrated his knowledge when he picked the tool he used to send the picture.

There's no criminal record involved because he wasn't charged with or convicted of a crime. You might as well claim that I'm arguing the death penalty should apply even though nobody was charged with a crime so no criminal penalty is even being considered.

Yes, a 14 year old is still "a boy". The problem is the people who think that being "a boy" is an excuse to do things you know are wrong and avoid all consequences of that action.

Comment Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score -1, Flamebait) 240

So tell me, in what benighted universe are we to hold them responsible for their sexual foibles

In the same universe where we don't just pat them on the head and say "isn't that sweet" when they do other illegal things that they should know are wrong. I'm sorry, but fourteen year olds are not "children" by every definition, they are old enough to know that some things are not appropriate. And this one demonstrated that he knew it was wrong because he used a service that was designed to delete the image. If it wasn't wrong, why shouldn't she be allowed to keep that image of him?

And sign in if you want a response next time, Obfuscant.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You didn't respond to me, you responded to someone else. If you wanted to respond to me, you could have. There's a "reply" option on every message I post.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 240

She then sends the picture to host of other people with the clear intent to hurt the boy, but that's fine.

Nobody said that was fine. They said that were she over 18 she could have been charged with "revenge porn" -- which is saying that it isn't fine, just that she's too young to be charged. And they didn't say she didn't end up on the same list, only that there was no information available to know she had.

How was he distributing the picture and she wasn't?

She was, and the article said she was.

Comment Re:The Power of the State. (Score 2) 240

What else is there to talk about here except for the complete lack of individual human rights?

I'm confused. Are you claiming that it is your "individual human right" to send naked pictures of yourself to any girl you might happen to know? How about her "individual human right" not to have pictures of your junk show up on her phone?

Or is it her "individual human right" to distribute that naked picture of you that you sent with the explicit intent that it be deleted soon after being received?

Whose "individual human rights" are we talking about here? And when did distributing porn to unsuspecting recipients, and then distribution of that to others as a way of exacting revenge, become a "human right"?

A right is protection against government oppression, this is a case of government oppressing a 14 year old child...

And I thought the scene with the muck collectors from Monty Python was ridiculous. "Help help, I'm being oppressed because I can't send pictures of my willy to every girl I know..."

Comment Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score 2, Insightful) 240

Please? I mean here are two perfectly innocent young children

Huh? One of them is sending unsolicited porn to a girl he knows, the other is spreading that porn to all her friends. Neither is "perfectly innocent."

just BEGGING to be thrown to the judicial wolves, torn apart, consumed, and eaten

One of them is reported to have been put on the list of people who have been accused of crimes. The other we don't know what happened to. Neither one is being charged with anything, neither one is being "thrown to the judicial wolves" or "eaten."

I'm pretty sure that a fourteen year old boy should know it isn't appropriate to send naked pictures of himself to others. That's what makes it a thrill to do, and that's why he used a system deliberately designed to delete images after a short period of time. If it was "perfectly normal" and "perfectly innocent" to send such pictures, why use a system that deletes them automatically?

The girl knew that it was revenge to distribute that picture once she had it. She even had to bypass the normal snapchat limits to save the image, so it's not like her having the image to distribute was some innocent mistake. She had to go out of her way to do it.

Sorry, but actions have consequences, even stupid actions.

Comment Re:Regeneration (Score 1) 252

Actually, you start paying with the first; $500 a pop.

No, you wouldn't. You'd get a check for $2500 instead of $3000. There is a difference. It wasn't your money to start with, so you aren't losing it when it isn't handed to you.

But I understand the confusion. Many people also buy the line that the government is "losing money" when there is a tax cut, when the truth is that people are getting to keep more of their money, not that they're being allowed to keep more of the government's money.

Comment Re:Speed isn't Everything (Score 1) 160

So for the resident, it comes down to price vs. performance like any other consumer decision.

Except that the playing field is rigged in favor of the municipality. The "customer" is paying in taxes, and then is expected to make a free choice between the municipality service and a commercial company.

This is the same rigging that works against private schools. People who are already paying taxes to the public schools have less money and less incentive to buy a private education for their children, so private schools are the haven for rich kids.

Significantly, Comcast and AT&T seem to believe municipal broadband is a real threat since they are willing to spend bucketloads of money trying to kill it.

Of course it's a threat. A highly-regulated private company cannot compete against a government "company" that can set its own rules and dip into the general fund to cover any losses.

I believe in a functioning constitutional democracy. Where such exists, I support it.

Then you have no qualms with state DOMA laws. Ok.

The U.S. federal version seems to be dysfunctional ATM.

ATM? Automatic Teller Machine?

In any case, the US "federal version" is not a "constitutional democracy", it is a "democratic republic". Not even for the two national officeholders we elect is it a true democracy, we elect people who vote on our behalf.

"You know, we've won awards for this crap." -- David Letterman

Working...