Let's assume one of the daughters consented on the spot, they would know they had, and would just tell us, problem solved. There is a problem when you consider if a child should be able to consent, not from a legal standpoint, from an education standpoint. My daughters know the dangers, I live in cybersecurity, they haven't been spared from reality. They know when the picture goes up, it's up, you can't get it back, just assume it gone forever, to be misused by anyone for any reason.

I like the Seinfeld reference :) - Just assume you have no consent, from anyone, and seek it out every time. I know it would be a lot of work, and represent an amount of effort as to not make social media worthwhile, but, it saves you from any risk. If you have a list of emails from parents with a Yes / No, then you can show you had consent, and the issue later on is mitigated.

How's that messed up? The girls don't want their pictures sitting on a digital subscription-based frame, and I can't blame them. They've offered to be a still picture for her, but they don't want to be uploaded into the cloud for no reason. I also don't withhold her being able to come over, or stop us from going to see her, so there just isn't a good reason to submit to digital violation because my mother wants them to.

Assuming it's remotely true (and there's good reason for thinking it isn't), it still means the FBI director was negligent in their choice of personal email provider, that the email provider had incompetent security, and that the government's failure to either have an Internet Czar (the post exists) or to enforce high standards on Internet services are a threat to the security of the nation (since we already know malware can cross airgaps through negligence, the DoD has been hit that way a few times). The FBI director could have copied unknown quantities of malware onto government machines through lax standards, any of which could have delivered classified information over the Internet (we know this because it has also happened to the DoD).

In short, the existence of the hack is a minor concern relative to every single implication that hack has.

Fair points, if you know me well enough to know my daughters, you know them. There's a difference between knowing who they are, and being able to actively engage with them via social media through exploitation. Just knowing me isn't enough to know who they are, I don't even introduce them, they have to introduce themselves, I'll just keep them anonymous. You would have no idea if one of the girls here was my daughter or their friend, unless we're close enough you've been introduced, and to me that about the right level of separation.

Did my mom give consent to be ridiculed, no, but you also don't know who she is, and the point of brining that up was to show that I don't mind who you are. No one has the right to exploit another person, just because they want to, and I don't mind if you're my mother, grandmother, or wife, if the kids don't want pictures taken, then no picture gets taken. In the same context, if the girls want a picture taken, that's fine, but it's opt-in, not opt-out.

I'm not exploiting anyone for credibility, I'm simply pointing out that we need to have kids consent to some activities. When they were younger, they didn't get to consent over vaccinations, we made that call, but as teenagers, they do get that choice, and we won't override it because, consent is important. In the same regard, if they don't want to be on social media, that's their choice.

It's not simple, but it's also not complicated, just ask the student, and check with the parents. Our schools and board have Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook, and they actively post pictures of children to them. You could be standing in the hall, and have someone snap your picture, and up it goes. It could be a club, or a sport event, or even the teacher in class (holy bleep, another story). As you pointed out, the expectation of privacy in public is low, and I honestly can't object to having a public picture uploaded, to spite how I feel.

The issue in our case was a picture got taken in school, and uploaded to spite us having "blacklisted" social media. We get a form home every year, and we have the option to allow social media uploads of the children, or not. We always select "No", followed by a note (paraphrased): "Please check with the X, it's her call." Neither of my daughters want to be on social media, and we don't override that. The school has to respect that choice, what's the point of asking consent, teaching about consent, and then ignoring it outright?

Since now I'm thinking about it, there was a case in grade 5 where the teacher snapped a "fun photo" of the class, and the board uploaded it to Facebook. Two of the kids in class had protection orders from one of their parents, I think the mom (don't quote me on that), and the police found the photo accidentally within hours. They had to rush to get it removed, since it clearly identified the kids, and their location (thanks EXIF).

In general, the parents have consent over the child, and in sometimes that makes sense. If my child doesn't want to get a vaccine, at age 4, it's not their call. If they don't want the vaccine at 16, well, that's a different story. We ask kids what they want for Christmas, Easter, birthdays, so I don't think asking them if you can violate them on social media is too much to ask.

If the child mentioned didn't give you consent to share details about them, don't. I don't name my daughters on anything, I use the term "daughters", and I don't share pictures without their consent, I don't take them either. I got annoyed with my mother who kept demanding to see a picture of my kids, if they don't want to be in a picture, and have it uploaded to your digital frame, I won't force them.

Oh boy, when the school uploaded details about my kids on Twitter, that was a bad week for the school and the board. We didn't authorize the school to do that, and, we're on record telling them they can never share the girls details on social media, without their explicit consent. They need explicit consent for every upload, even it's a re-upload, and surprise, my daughters don't want to be plastered all over social media.

To be fair, I don't think it's a primary school teacher's job to teach cybersecurity, outside some basic information. They should be actively teaching that analytics and telemetry is just marketing speak for stealing data to abusively use against you. They should teach that features like “Ink & Typing”, are horribly abusively, and you should turn them off. Some basic information that you should read license agreements and privacy policies, before using software, would be proactive. That's where teachers should really be at, in the primary school level. Secondary school level, all kids, ALL KIDS, should be forced to take a course on cybersecurity which covers, I'm going to keep saying “Real”, as in actually good, useful, modern and proactive:

1. Real cybersecurity information. This would cover your typical 101 style training, but, expand that into 102 and 103, where you're learning about why PGP (or another technology) is vital for identity validation. How to understand what a privacy policy is actually saying, and why they're designed to protect the company at the abuse of the user. Why independent, open encryption is vital to protecting yourself.

2. Real operating system breakdowns, basic.

Don't make this a history of Unix, although awesome, don't. What this topic would cover is why operating system selection is important. Maybe Windows is the right choice, perhaps Linux is the appropriate choice, or Unix, but give the kids the information.

3. Understanding the digital landscape.

What VPNs are actually good for. Why using alternative networks and proxies help protect you. What TLS is, and what is it not. Understanding basic secure protocols, HTTP vs HTTPS, for instance. Why SSH over Telnet, or SFTP instead of FTP. Understanding domain separation, why you want to use VMs and containers, and what should be in a VM vs a container.

One of the points I hammer home when I do training, is that you should NEVER have your email client outside an isolated environment. You don't need to use a VM, but at least use a container. To Microsoft's credit, they actually built-in a feature to Windows 11 where you can run your email client in an isolated container, and that should be on by default.

I'm not going to keep going, but there are many simple, straight forwards, basic, and non-complicated things you can do as an end user. It's 2026, not 2006, not 1996, not 1986, and we do not give kids a reasonable computer education. For instance, install Privacy Badger, DuckDuckGO, and Privacy Possum, then look at what sites are collecting. Why does a math application, meant for kids, run all the data through Google Analytics? Why does it load a payment processor before logging in? Why are pixels and cookies being stored / collected, on an educational application? Stuff like this.

I really do have all of this information in an approachable, simple, and easy to take courses in a Moodle instance. Anyone at the company can take one of several dozen courses on these kinds of topics, and I think we need that approach in secondary school. I know people in IT who wouldn't pass a simple cybersecurity 101 course. My wife is a nurse, and works at a clinic in town, she didn't know that you can recall documents from the print spool on the printer. I showed her one night that I could print sensitive patient documents without a computer, and her company's response? Silence, they said nothing after she reported this, and when cybersecurity training came up, nothing about the dangers of printer spools.

The other topic, addiction. Why do I honestly think products should be addictive? If your product is legally addictive, you've designed a good product. If you want to use the thing, the thing is to some degree worth using. Occasionally, I play digital slot machines on my phone, for fake money, and it's spectacular, I enjoy it, but gambling is objectively addictive. Should the slot games have to mitigate that? No, the user needs to mitigate their use of the application, not the other way around. If buy a family pack of Oreo's, it might have 2-days before it's gone, is that Oreo's issue to mitigate? No, I love Oreo's, they're delicious, I'm not going to lie, I'm a very fat man in a jacked man's body. The gym is addictive, is that the gyms fault? No, it's my fault I keep going, it's my fault I wake up at 6:00am on a Saturday to get my workout in (and 4 other days that week).

Let's examine more traditionally addictive things, like liquor. I like whiskey, rum, beer, sambuca, and other libations, should the companies who make have to protect me from drinking them, no, I can just not drink. If I'm drinking too much, that's on me to solve, now, maybe I need professional help, and that's fine, but it's not the liquors fault. Tobacco, I smoke pipes, cigars, using chewing tobacco (not often), dip tobacco (not often), dry snuff (Nasal snuff), and nicotine pouches. Should tobacco company's be forced to protect you from using those products? No, tobacco is delicious, a Partagas Series D, is a wonderful cigar. A bowl of Peterson Standard Mixture, my mouth is watering thinking about it, delicious, but it's my choice to use it.

I think you can see where I'm going, even when it's prescription pain meds, you have to make the choice. Facebook might be “addictive”, good on Facebook for designing a system you want to use. YouTube might be addictive, I'm listening to YouTube music right now, it provides entertainment well I work, as would Spotify, or any other music streaming app, but again my choice.

Last point, when I said I'm legally blind, I'm not blind as in no sight, my prescription is 20/200 (the bad way), in each eye. That large E on the eye test is blurry for me, that's what legally blindness is.

There's no reason a smart TV MUST have an account with the manufacturer or seller unless they want to enshittify it.

You may want to have accounts with various streaming services or perhaps you just want it to stream video you have on a NAS.

I don't understand why these two fell for it.

They spent too much time believing the Orange Drivel machine about how America rules the World.

The issue is that actual real enforcement of laws on company executives who do bad things is no longer a thing in the American mindset. When it occurs in other countries the kneejerk response is "we don't do that, so you guys shouldn't do it either".

Two words. Look them up. 1. collage. 2. Internet.

They are NOT primarily focused on Firefox and have so much play money they squander it on whatever projects amuse them as is their legal right.

Their Google contract alone brings in about half a billion dollars. They're a highly "profitable" non-profit.

Yes?

As for the one in New York, I'll give you three guesses where La Liberté éclairant le monde was made.

I'm going to start in reverse.

Yes, I agree to this, which is why the education aspect is so important. We give kids a 1/2 assed, destitute, very limited, drug education, where we tell them (paraphrased): "Never do drugs, drugs are bad.". The real education they should have, and my wife and I give our kids (paraphrased): "Drugs can be fun, interesting, expand your mind, and create a different operating dynamic. If you want to try a drug, learn about it, research it, secure a safe supply, test it, and set up a situation where you're safe, and it's controlled.". Why did so many kids in high school try mushrooms, or cannabis? They tried it because the parent said "No!", and "This will destroy your life", but then noticed that wasn't true.

Our schools use to hold police led education nights, where officers would "educate" youth and parents on the dangers of drugs, but it was never correct, or reasonable information. They still teach that cannabis is a gateway drug, gateway to what? Cannabis does not lead to heroin use, what leads to harder drugs, are the lies, and kids realizing they were lied to, if cannabis is safe, heroin is safe, and that's the real issue.

I did, and I offered all my advice, documentation, and even Moodle courses to the school and board for FREE. I offered to come in as a security expert and talk to the kids, and was denied. My home network costs north of 5k, and I understand that some family just can't spend that much, and shouldn't. If you could buy any one device, a good firewall / router. The Dream Machine Pro, as an example, is a great solution, and if you bought just one device to lock your network down, that's what I'd buy (again), I own two of them.

Apart from a good firewall and router, you need to educate kids on how to set up their environments, and this is where the schools are failing badly. Kids should know how disgusting insecure most default set ups are, and simple, easy, and straightfoward solutions on how to cover 90% of the issues. Simple things like what a VPN is actually good for, or, what exentions you should be installing in your browser. What settings in your OS you should be turning off, and just basic instruction. Don't teach them about Group Policy, if you want the other 10%, sure, but you don't need it, 90% is good enough for 99% of circumstances.

This is a fun point to take on. I have a condition called Chronic Neuropathic Pain Disorder ,which cause chronic pain. The pain ranges from annoying to a hard kick in the nuts. Over the last 5-years I've been on every class of pain killer / neuropathic pain medication, which is over 50. I've had prescription grade fentanyl, at a grade and strength higher then you'll get on the street. Somewhere near me, I'm also legally blind so I really can't see the bottles, are bottles of hydromorphone, toradol, T4, T3, morphine, and something else. I also have several kg's of cannabis home grown, and more edibles, oils, and vapes then you've probably seen at a house. I would have a pretty good excuse for being an addict, but, I have to balance my treatments with the understanding that addiction is possible.

This is why I also say that addiction is a choice, I have to choose to be productive, and not high, which is not a simple choice. I've taken one day off in 5-years for pain, and I didn't really take it off, I blacked out and my wife found me seizing on the floor, and was rushed to the hospital. To fairly quote you:

That's the entire point I'm making, something being addictive is not the problem, have you had a Twix? Oreo's? Pringles? Lots of things are addictive, but you have to make the choice to abuse it.