society functions on trust. you can't have civil society with people who are anonymous. you need to see their emotions and their intent. even wearing sunglasses is evasive and makes you seem untrustworthy
we already have it in the form of everyone with a cell phone camera. if anything remotely interesting in public happens, 5 or 6 people are filming it and its uploaded within the hour and mirrored forever beyond any possible take back within a few hours
if loss of privacy bothers you, the concept of little brother should bother you more than the concept of big brother. you can hold government accountable and force it to abide by rules and sue it. you can't do that with every random anonymous yahoo around you
1. the footage shouldn't be public. there's a lot of interaction that cops deal with which is embarrassing and private for individuals. your underage arrest has to live with you forever? your suicide attempt or domestic issues should be open to prying eyes? no, no, no
2. the footage shouldn't be under the control of local police departments. "oops, sorry, i 'bumped the server' and we lost the footage of that controversial shooting by my buddy nate. oh well"
state level? federal level?
and then really solid rules about who gets to access what footage must be enacted. something similar to HIPAA rules and fines
The anchors in question have iPads and are comfortable using them. Microsoft almost certainly paid CNN to have all their anchors use Surface tablets on air, and the anchors probably aren't particularly thrilled that they have to ditch the platform they're comfortable with. I'm sure that now that this (admittedly hilarious) picture has circulated, it will be mandated that CNN anchors not have iPads anywhere near them while on the air.
Ads have been pretending to be part of website user interfaces forever now. A good website would ban those kinds of ads, but Facebook's customers (the advertisers) pay top dollar for unfettered access to Facebook's main commodity (its users). The only way that's ever going to change is if people start to leave Facebook in droves, but unfortunately it's the primary way that Gen X, Gen Y, and older Millenials communicate with each other. It's going to be a couple decades yet before Facebook's primary users age into less valuable advertising demographics, and people have already shown that they're generally unwilling to jump ship for better platforms (Google Plus isn't great, but it's a hell of a lot less obnoxious than Facebook). Me, I deleted my Facebook account several years ago, and have never looked back.
I think it's because cheap hotels are for regular travelers and nice hotels are for people traveling on business who will be reimbursed by their employers. Even for expensive hotels, the prices are pretty minuscule compared to what a big company can afford, so money is really no object for them. So the employees book at expensive hotels because it's kind of a perk of traveling for their company, and private individuals book at cheap ones because that's what they can afford.
Your sarcasm and oversimplification has convinced me that government always bad corporations always good.
I know. We need government interference to tell Fark that they aren't allowed to moderate the content on their own site. If people area allowed to run their privately owned websites the way they choose, it'll be anarchy! Anarchy!!! ANAARRRCCCHHHYYYYY!!!!
...so meaningless as false advertising?
There needs to be an addition to contract law wherein if something is in large print, it trumps anything in small print.
I very rarely run into ads that are aggressive enough to get through AdBlock.
no, it's not newsworthy
but it feels good giving them as much bad PR as we can handle
post a story like this every other month
"consumers screwed by oligopolies" category should be a thing
The fact that you're making that comment is a pretty strong statement about the (un)likelihood of that actually happening.