It's publicly available is not a good argument or excuse to vacuum it all up and analyse/monitor childrens social media.
Helpful in an active shooter scenario? If your incidence of active shooter scenarios are so high as to make this a significant reason to spy on kids then maybe spend the money to actually solve the active shooter problem.
It could pick up cries for help or threats of self harm/harming others...There is a cost to benefit judgement here that I feel the cost (kids privacy) is way too high but YMMV.
The NSA and whoever else do worse so why not have schools do a subset on students is a terrible reason.
The phrase, "vacuum it all up" is interesting because the data isn't vacuumed by Geofeedia, it's sold to them by Twitter via Gnip. It's just like how websites sell your PII to advertising companies. Everyone who uses Twitter consents to this and the fact of the matter is this: the posts you make on Twitter are every bit as public as something you screamed at the top of your lungs on from the top of a building downtown. Certainly the users have *some* personal accountability? It wasn't my intent to argue that this, in and of itself, solved the active shooter problem. I simply mean to say that the folks interested in this tool are concerned with saving lives and responding as quickly to threats as possible. There are probably a dozen other things they are also doing to "solve the active shooter problem" and other issues, it's not like they are only allowed to do one thing at a time. If folks don't like it, they shouldn't use a product that is monetized by selling their data.
A covert surveillance tool monitoring your nations children operated by police liaison stationed on school grounds. For their own safety of course. (Well "mostly" for their safety. No mention of what the other motivations might be).
This isn't a slippery slope. This is halfway down the mountain heading for a cliff sliding at full speed.
All of the Twitter info captured by the tool is publicly available and when an active shooter incident occurs, calls for help via social media beat any other form of communication. Furthermore, people in general but children in particular, say pretty disturbing things on social media. Cries for help, threatening to harm themselves or other students. Perhaps the idea of a public safety employee monitoring the information is too spooky for some and apparently the value prop isn't being realized according to the article but this pales in comparison to the PRISM stuff or other clandestine programs.
...the simple stupidity of using a globally-editable data source for feeding a mapping and navigation system is
Lots of services and organizations use OpenStreetMaps which is a crowd sourced GIS repository. I don't know how moderation of OSM compares to Wikipedia, but last I heard, Wikipedia is moderated pretty heavily. Isn't over-moderation a big complaint about Wikipedia these days?
From the redacted emails that have been released, there have been numerous signs of separate crimes being committed surrounding both gross negligence and willful acts, including where she told her subordinates to remove origination headers, which implies classification (a crime to remove and separately to order others to do it), to send via fax (a separate crime). The same people that have been willfully blocking the investigation (yet another crime) assured the public that this was not classified content.
This is misinformation. Comey stated in the committee yesterday that it was well known in diplomatic circles that the particular phrasing she used meant making the material safe for a third-party and was not an instruction to remove classification headings. And I quote:
Comey said, “Actually it caught my attention when I first saw it, and what she explained and other witnesses did as well is what she meant by that is send it in a non-classified format," Comey said. “In diplomatic circles ('non paper') means something we could pass to another government.”
Ok, how about this evidence:
She testified under oath that there was no classified information sent or received by her email server to the Benghazi Committee. The FBI just had a big press conference saying they found 100+ classified documents that were classified at the time of sending / receiving. The FBI director just testified under oath to the House Government Oversight Committee that there was classified material in the emails, which was classified at the time of delivery.
Pending perjury charges? Probably not, because no "reasonable prosecutor" has the balls to try it.
FBI director stated in the committee yesterday that none of the emails had the required classifications headers and that the only ones that had a classification (C) symbol were specified in the body, in a threaded discussion. There are no perjury charges because according to Comey, it is a "reasonable inference" that she didn't know the material was classified. But hey, don't let me interrupt the echo chamber.
As compared to the president who thought there was 52 states?
Who was that? Obama looked to me to have started to say "all 50" states, but corrected himself down to 47 in mid thought/sentence, and said fifty-uh-seven. And didn't bother to redact his "fifty" before revising the number down to 47.
I'd hate to be a politician, a single slip of the tongue and a bunch of self-important twats will jump on for it. Here's the snopes that further elaborates on the event you are referring to in your comment. http://www.snopes.com/politics...
If Snapchat started having a feature called "Number of red lights run!" -- would you defend them from liability?
Snapchat didn't encourage illegal behavior like your example does. There's nothing wrong with taking a picture of yourself, as a passenger, in a vehicle going below the speed limit.
"though they were not classified at the time they were sent to Clinton's personal email"
Legally, it doesn't matter that the emails weren't classified at the time they were sent. Classification doesn't depend on markings, classification depends on content. If you strip the classified markings from an item that doesn't mean it isn't classified anymore.
The article says that the classification was upgraded later, not that it was stripped from the version she received in her email? Your comments regarding classification and markings are interesting but are they really relevant in this case? Maybe I'm missing something but if the information was not classified, and was subsequently released into a public domain, then the information is retroactively upgraded... it's too late, all originator controls are gone? How could someone be held accountable for something like that?
The bogosity meter just pegged.