View Full Version : FEDS mine facebook
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_bbd23382-6ecf-11e0-aeef-001a4bcf6878.html
MVP
R3V3LATIONS
04-25-2011, 10:13
Seems like just another reason to not have one (in addition to the numerous reasons TR and TS have already pointed out previously), very possible to be "found guilty by association" with this type of thing. However in this case, it seemed to have help put the right people behind bars.
Facebook seems like an idea that gets dumber as time progresses, im really glad I dont have one. Hopefully those that have them pay attention, and watch who they "friend" this may be the norm for future investigations.
mark46th
04-25-2011, 10:57
I have one but only use it to keep in touch with family and a few friends.
Dozer523
04-25-2011, 12:18
“To be honest with you, it bothers me,” said Wilson, 25, who was indicted Tuesday on bank robbery charges after the FBI compared Facebook photos with images taken from a bank surveillance video. “Facebook could have let me know what was going on. , Instead I got my door kicked down, and all of a sudden I’m in handcuffs.”
That's funny. I love the fourth amendment.
"Don't see what the big deal is if you're not a criminal ....or in general doing anything wrong."
Anything you say or write can be twisted and misrepresented. HR people screen FB as part of their hriing practices. Laywers look at FB entries for ways to discredit LE officers, witnesses or plaintiffs.
Last year I got a "friend" email from an old buddy in 1/10. When I asked him he said he did not send it to me or a number of other people that received it...
All in all it is not very wise to do much of anything with FB.
MVP
BrokenSwitch
04-25-2011, 16:05
So, the Feds FINALLY got around to checking Facebook for sketchiness? Took 'em long enough-- I occasionally mine Facebook for the odd announcement, photograph or whatever from the pro-Palestinian sector. You thought college kids were bad for posting drunk pictures? This crowd uses hand grenades! (see attached)
Also, this...
Royal guard cut from wedding after Kate complaints (http://royalwedding.yahoo.com/blogs/guard-cut-from-wedding-after-kate-complaints-6189?nc)
Kyobanim
04-25-2011, 16:18
In 20 years facebook is going to come back and bite the world in the ass.
None of the information you put inthere is private. Someone has to manage the databases.
I have a FB page.
Let's see now...long, turgid discussions of economics, check.
Links to Accuweather, check.
"Like" clicked on countless cat pictures, check.
Whoever monitors my page is going to have an easy time going to sleep. :D
This crowd uses hand grenades! (see attached)
I believe you have a photo of a USED CS rubber ball..
Stinger® Rubber Ball Grenade
CS
PART IDs:
1088 CS
1089 OC
1090 Rubber Pellet Only
To psychologically and physiologically maximize less-lethal force against the most stubborn of crowds, the Stinger® rubber ball grenade offers the multiple stimulus of light, sound, rubber pellets and optional CS or OC chemical agents.
Defense Technology Corporation of America, headquartered in Casper, Wyoming
Do more, much more, searching before posting..
:munchin
Ret10Echo
04-25-2011, 18:02
IMHO...screening/mining FB is now a responsibility as part of due diligence in today's society.
Don't be the one who didn't look there when the truth comes out.
R3V3LATIONS
04-25-2011, 20:36
I just like staying low profile.
FWIW, I think facebook is a product of a narcissistic society where the majority of people just want to dellude themselves into thinking people care about every detail they do during the course of the day. I never understood the idea of it, had it once, thought it was dumb and deleted it. Also, it limited my job opportunity due to the fact that my name and a picture of me as well as who knew me was all in one location....that information can be dangerous on its own to the wrong people, depending on what you do for a living.
just me however. If you have one, great and glad you like it, but for me, I am a little paranoid in regards to social networking.
sorry for being long winded.
Nmap, Really??!! Me Too!
Really. I "liked" Fresh Step litter, so most days I get some good cat pictures.
Attached is Bandita during her kittenhood...she always likes to get in a box, or, in this case, an ice cream container.
I just like staying low profile.
(snip)
just me however. If you have one, great and glad you like it, but for me, I am a little paranoid in regards to social networking.
A little paranoia can be a very good thing. Still, setting the privacy settings at high levels permits you to control a lot of what goes out.
One benefit I've found is that it is possible to develop contacts. One can go from hardly knowing the other person to at least being able to say hello in the hallway - that can, IMO, be helpful.
So it isn't so much expecting others to care about the trivia of one's life; rather, one can learn and (where appropriate) appreciate the trivia of others' lives. It doesn't hurt anything, so far as I can tell.
Look up CALEA,
If you are a criminal nothing is Private
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994, during the presidency of Bill Clinton (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 USC 1001-1010). In its own words, the purpose of CALEA is:
To amend title 18, United States Code, to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for Law Enforcement purposes, and for other purposes.
CALEA's purpose is to enhance the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to monitor all telephone, broadband internet, and VoIP traffic in real-time.
Ret10Echo
04-26-2011, 09:41
If you keep it simple, trivial stuff ("Hey I went to CVS and they have PEEPS on sale" ) I really can't see any harm.
But if an LE agency contacts you concerning an event that occured in or around the CVS during that day...is that reasonable or unreasonable?
Cyber-canvasing of the neighborhood you might say.
Ret10Echo
04-26-2011, 17:23
Why would that be unreasonable? I don't know, I tend to be naive about these things sometimes....if something went down --illegal-wise-- around the CVS I'd want to help LE if I could.
I don't disagree...but some would see that as being an invasion of their privacy if the mention of CVS on FB in conjunction with some geo-location data...(etc) led to an ask for assistance or questions.
Most if not all the negatives about (fill in blank) are true,, but only because people are not doing their homework.
If you drive a car with bald tires and have a flat,, is it the car makers fault??
As for the pop-ups and mining of data for money...
Do you pick the ads in your Sunday paper??
Do you pick the TV adds on your favorite show??
I don't think so.. Some suite with an MBA in basket weaving is paid big bucks to guess what adds will sell on each show based on a data model developed in 1937 by Jack Benny... It's a WAG..
With a new technology will come new ways to sell to the user of that technology. And they will be able to more accurately GUESS what will appeal to you by collecting your data.
The catch now is are you aware they use your data?? AND Do you give a dam??
99.9% of the respondents that were asked this question were completely unaware and didn't give a dam...
The rest of us tin hat'ers may be losing the fight..
If the data mined is used for nefarious deeds!!!
If the data mined is use to manipulate religious or political opinion!!
Probably WRONG..
If guys wants to make BIG bucks!!
Buy stock in his company,, relax,, enjoy...
:munchin
But if an LE agency contacts you concerning an event that occured in or around the CVS during that day...is that reasonable or unreasonable?
Cyber-canvasing of the neighborhood you might say.
Honestly, I think it depends on the approach. A lot, actually.
If half a dozen officers show up, shoot the place up, kill the cat and make me watch, then force me to lie face down in a fire-ant nest, then my attitude will be as bad as can be. (I recognize that this is way over the top. Please understand that no offense is meant to law enforcement officers in general.)
On the other hand, if a couple officers show up, introduce themselves, and indicate that a crime has occurred in the area and they wish to ask me some questions, then I'll probably invite them in, suggest comfortable seating, and ask (quite sincerely) how I can help.
In a real-world example, years ago a couple plain-clothes officers came into a small eating place I go to looking for an ex-waiter. I got the impression there were problems with hot checks or some such. Were they professional? Yes. But more assertive than friendly. Net result, the people they were asking for information didn't provide it. As an observer who didn't have any information (and whom everyone ignored anyway), I found it vaguely amusing. Those officers may have believed they were using the optimal approach. Perhaps they were. But it certainly didn't work.
Noslack71
04-26-2011, 18:35
I wonder if there are any lessons being learned from the events in the Middle East, and if so, who is learning them?
Noslack
The Reaper
04-26-2011, 18:53
I wonder if there are any lessons being learned from the events in the Middle East, and if so, who is learning them?
Noslack
I am.
TR
Ret10Echo
04-26-2011, 19:38
If half a dozen officers show up, shoot the place up, kill the cat and make me watch, then force me to lie face down in a fire-ant nest, then my attitude will be as bad as can be. (I recognize that this is way over the top. Please understand that no offense is meant to law enforcement officers in general.)
Where was that link on here about SWAT Team usage???
In a real-world example, years ago a couple plain-clothes officers came into a small eating place I go to looking for an ex-waiter. I got the impression there were problems with hot checks or some such. Were they professional? Yes. But more assertive than friendly. Net result, the people they were asking for information didn't provide it. As an observer who didn't have any information (and whom everyone ignored anyway), I found it vaguely amusing. Those officers may have believed they were using the optimal approach. Perhaps they were. But it certainly didn't work.
Agree, the techniques will be refined as the methods become the norm. Challenge to the LE in making the cold-call is that you KNOW (or think you KNOW) that the door you are knocking on is someone who was (MAY have been) a the scene....Does that increase the '*' factor any more?
If that information is available what other info is in-hand when they arrive? Are you a gun owner? Registered _________? etc...
In general the objection appears to be about WHO is making note of personal habits, trends and notices not necessarily that the information is being gathered.
JJ - To your point...most people don't care that all the top and side banners of the website they are on seem to be related to the last several web sites they visited...or that last online purchase they made. Coincidence? I think not.
Marketing or Intelligence gathering...?
Guess it depends on who you are.
Dozer523
04-27-2011, 12:21
Anyone who thinks they have a right to an"expectation of privacy" about information they post openly on the internet is a complete durfwad. That's MISTER Durfwad to you, thank you very much.
I have a very great and reasonable expecation of privacy in just about everything I do cuz I got a Fourth Amendment right.
If the officers (or SWAT team with a bucket of fireants) show up because I live in the CVSs neighborhood, I too will talk with them as helpfully as I can (but from a comfortable spot on my front porch swing. They aren't coming in without a warrant.). Same if they mention they noticed me on the surveilance footage or even if they turned up a reciept with my info on it (although the line is starting to blur for me). But, if they found me by serching for comments or "likes CVS" via Facebook they better have a warrant. Going into my facebook on a rabbit hunt is a violation of my protection from unreasonable search.
Come to think of it they better have a warrant if they contact my bank to hook my name to my credit card reciept.
Dozer523
04-27-2011, 15:49
Mr. Durfwad::D
dozer : 4th Amendment as The Reaper :
a) 2nd Amendment
b) 16th Amendment
c) 18th Amendment
d) 19th Amendment
Roguish Lawyer
04-27-2011, 17:06
There's no reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet.
Not sure this has been established at this point. Pretty sure it is an open question.
One of the possibilities I wonder about with regard to internet posting is statistical profiling. For example, if I buy items at Amazon, or even look at items, the site makes suggestions for other things I might have an interest in. Sometimes they're right.
But let's suppose we find a high correlation between some posting pattern and criminal behavior. Let us suppose we find that people who talk about cats, fire-ants, and the fate of the dollar are likely to put trash in the recycling bin :D .
Do we monitor such folk more closely? Do we have a friendly chat with them? Or, do we ignore the crime when we have a potentially effective tool?
If there is a serious crime in an area and we have no suspects, should we start looking at those who fit the profile within some area? And how far should our investigation go?
In this case, all of the behavior is public. There is no expectation of privacy. But there is no indication that the individual has committed a crime, either.
As computers get faster and we become more public in our communications, I cannot help wondering if this won't become an issue.
GratefulCitizen
04-27-2011, 22:33
One of the possibilities I wonder about with regard to internet posting is statistical profiling. For example, if I buy items at Amazon, or even look at items, the site makes suggestions for other things I might have an interest in. Sometimes they're right.
But let's suppose we find a high correlation between some posting pattern and criminal behavior. Let us suppose we find that people who talk about cats, fire-ants, and the fate of the dollar are likely to put trash in the recycling bin :D .
Do we monitor such folk more closely? Do we have a friendly chat with them? Or, do we ignore the crime when we have a potentially effective tool?
If there is a serious crime in an area and we have no suspects, should we start looking at those who fit the profile within some area? And how far should our investigation go?
In this case, all of the behavior is public. There is no expectation of privacy. But there is no indication that the individual has committed a crime, either.
As computers get faster and we become more public in our communications, I cannot help wondering if this won't become an issue.
There is an error in the tense of your verb: "become".
Computers have long since been powerful enough for these tasks, and such things have been done for quite some time.
However, the methods guarantee a degree of imperfection.
The long term goal is to be wrong 5% of the time...
The long term goal is to be wrong 5% of the time...
So....if we see a 95% correlation between a set of behaviors and criminality, should SWAT come a'callin' ? :eek:
GratefulCitizen
04-28-2011, 14:16
So....if we see a 95% correlation between a set of behaviors and criminality, should SWAT come a'callin' ? :eek:
Was actually referring to a "confidence level" rather than correlation coefficient.
The appropriate "confidence level" is an arbitrary decision.
The problem with probability is that it wipes out individual nuances.
To gain one form of information, others forms are lost.
Such is the nature of information entropy.
perdurabo
04-28-2011, 14:21
Interesting story on a related topic:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/04/unfollowed-how-a-possible-social-network-spy-came-undone/all/1
It's further interesting exploring the social network around the named people in the article. One person who struck me in particular was an apparent QP ("5W" as a hint) who's Twitter timeline is flooded with 4square coordinates throughout each day. It was pretty easy to establish his routine.
incarcerated
06-26-2011, 13:59
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008231/How-youve-EVER-said-internet-seen-employers-government-approves-Social-Intelligence-Corp.html
How anything you've EVER said on the internet could be seen by employers as Feds approve firm that dishes dirt on applicants
Company keeps information on its records for SEVEN YEARS
Uses special software to track down applicants' online pseudonyms
Means social media postings will become regular part of job application process
Government rules company doesn't breach regulations
By Fiona Roberts
Last updated at 11:27 AM on 26th June 2011
The Federal Trade Commission has approved a controversial firm which scours social media sites to check on job applicants.
It means anything you've ever said in public on sites including Facebook, Twitter and even Craigslist could be seen by your would-be employer.
The Washington-based commission has ruled the firm, Social Intelligence Corporation, complies with the Fair Credit Reporting Act - even though it keeps the results of its searches on file for seven years.
It raises the frightening prospect of any social media posting, even it's years old or was meant as a joke, being used in background checks.
Applicants who use online pseudonyms aren't safe, either - the firm uses special software to link those nicknames with real, offline names known to employers.
One applicant found himself out of the running for a job after being branded racist because he once joined a Facebook group called 'I shouldn't have to press one for English. We are in the United States. Learn the language.'
Social Intelligence Corp scours everything from social networking sites, such as Facebook, to video and picture sharing websites as well as blogs and wikis.
The company has defended its policy of keeping the searches on file, saying it's for compliance reasons only.
It says the negative findings are not re-used if a new employer runs a check on an applicant.
Its chief operating officer, Geoffrey Andrews, said: 'We are not... building a “database” on individuals that will be evaluated each time they apply for a job and potentially could be used adversely even if they have cleaned up their profiles.'
One of the reports, released to Forbes magazine, flagged an applicant for 'demonstrating potentially violent behaviour' because he'd posted a photograph of him holding a gun on his Facebook account....
Social Intelligence Corp. was founded a year ago, and soon afterwards the Federal Trade Commission began investigating over fears it could be in breach of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
But the government has now dropped its inquiry, ruling the company is within the rules as long as it lets applicants know whether they failed to get a job as a result of the report.
It also changed the wording on it permission form - which all applicants must sign before the checks are carried out - to make sure they know exactly what will be checked during the review....
greenberetTFS
06-26-2011, 14:40
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008231/How-youve-EVER-said-internet-seen-employers-government-approves-Social-Intelligence-Corp.html
How anything you've EVER said on the internet could be seen by employers as Feds approve firm that dishes dirt on applicants
Company keeps information on its records for SEVEN YEARS
Uses special software to track down applicants' online pseudonyms
Means social media postings will become regular part of job application process
Government rules company doesn't breach regulations
By Fiona Roberts
Last updated at 11:27 AM on 26th June 2011
The Federal Trade Commission has approved a controversial firm which scours social media sites to check on job applicants.
It means anything you've ever said in public on sites including Facebook, Twitter and even Craigslist could be seen by your would-be employer.
The Washington-based commission has ruled the firm, Social Intelligence Corporation, complies with the Fair Credit Reporting Act - even though it keeps the results of its searches on file for seven years.
It raises the frightening prospect of any social media posting, even it's years old or was meant as a joke, being used in background checks.
Applicants who use online pseudonyms aren't safe, either - the firm uses special software to link those nicknames with real, offline names known to employers.
One applicant found himself out of the running for a job after being branded racist because he once joined a Facebook group called 'I shouldn't have to press one for English. We are in the United States. Learn the language.'
Social Intelligence Corp scours everything from social networking sites, such as Facebook, to video and picture sharing websites as well as blogs and wikis.
The company has defended its policy of keeping the searches on file, saying it's for compliance reasons only.
It says the negative findings are not re-used if a new employer runs a check on an applicant.
Its chief operating officer, Geoffrey Andrews, said: 'We are not... building a “database” on individuals that will be evaluated each time they apply for a job and potentially could be used adversely even if they have cleaned up their profiles.'
One of the reports, released to Forbes magazine, flagged an applicant for 'demonstrating potentially violent behaviour' because he'd posted a photograph of him holding a gun on his Facebook account....
Social Intelligence Corp. was founded a year ago, and soon afterwards the Federal Trade Commission began investigating over fears it could be in breach of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
But the government has now dropped its inquiry, ruling the company is within the rules as long as it lets applicants know whether they failed to get a job as a result of the report.
It also changed the wording on it permission form - which all applicants must sign before the checks are carried out - to make sure they know exactly what will be checked during the review....
This sucks..........:mad::mad::mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
greenberetTFS
06-26-2011, 14:43
:D
dozer : 4th Amendment as The Reaper :
a) 2nd Amendment
b) 16th Amendment
c) 18th Amendment
d) 19th Amendment
Dozer's right,agree with him 100%...........:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
Dozer523
06-26-2011, 15:05
Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL
There's no reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet.Not sure this has been established at this point. Pretty sure it is an open question. So which way should we lean? Catching bad guys or protecting the rights of the citizens?
a question that has been asked for the past 235 years. Great Country.
greenberetTFS
06-26-2011, 15:26
I don't know how I can prove it,but I believe "Janet" is monitoring our site,SFA's site as well as the Ranger and SEAL's......... You'll recall I'm sure her comments regarding military veterans and her concern we could develop into(well you know what I mean)....I don't believe I'm paranoid because I think she's sure we're the ones to watch,after all muslims over 35 aren't what she's concerned about we are...:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008231/How-youve-EVER-said-internet-seen-employers-government-approves-Social-Intelligence-Corp.html
How anything you've EVER said on the internet could be seen by employers as Feds approve firm that dishes dirt on applicants
Company keeps information on its records for SEVEN YEARS
Uses special software to track down applicants' online pseudonyms
Means social media postings will become regular part of job application process
Government rules company doesn't breach regulations
By Fiona Roberts
Last updated at 11:27 AM on 26th June 2011
The Federal Trade Commission has approved a controversial firm which scours social media sites to check on job applicants.
It means anything you've ever said in public on sites including Facebook, Twitter and even Craigslist could be seen by your would-be employer.
The Washington-based commission has ruled the firm, Social Intelligence Corporation, complies with the Fair Credit Reporting Act - even though it keeps the results of its searches on file for seven years.
It raises the frightening prospect of any social media posting, even it's years old or was meant as a joke, being used in background checks.
Applicants who use online pseudonyms aren't safe, either - the firm uses special software to link those nicknames with real, offline names known to employers.
One applicant found himself out of the running for a job after being branded racist because he once joined a Facebook group called 'I shouldn't have to press one for English. We are in the United States. Learn the language.'
Social Intelligence Corp scours everything from social networking sites, such as Facebook, to video and picture sharing websites as well as blogs and wikis.
The company has defended its policy of keeping the searches on file, saying it's for compliance reasons only.
It says the negative findings are not re-used if a new employer runs a check on an applicant.
Its chief operating officer, Geoffrey Andrews, said: 'We are not... building a “database” on individuals that will be evaluated each time they apply for a job and potentially could be used adversely even if they have cleaned up their profiles.'
One of the reports, released to Forbes magazine, flagged an applicant for 'demonstrating potentially violent behaviour' because he'd posted a photograph of him holding a gun on his Facebook account....
Social Intelligence Corp. was founded a year ago, and soon afterwards the Federal Trade Commission began investigating over fears it could be in breach of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
But the government has now dropped its inquiry, ruling the company is within the rules as long as it lets applicants know whether they failed to get a job as a result of the report.
It also changed the wording on it permission form - which all applicants must sign before the checks are carried out - to make sure they know exactly what will be checked during the review....
If that is all it takes, I know a LOT of folks that will be branded racist, violence prone, homophobic, and any other number of labels. If I were a lawyer looking for a law-suit goldmine, this would be it.
Trip_Wire (RIP)
06-26-2011, 16:09
Well as many here know, I have a FB page and use it every day. Of course, now there are FB pages to include those 'group' pages for SF, Rangers, etc.
I'm relatively careful what I post there to include pictures. Since I'm retired and no longer active duty SF or LE I have no OPSEC worries. I sort of enjoy FB and the many FB friends (Over 1,000) I have on FB. I have made some mistakes taking some people into FB as friends; however, that is easily remedied.
If I was active duty SF or in a SO unit, I wouldn't have a FB page or if I did wouldn't post much of any details or post SF pictures there.
As for LE using the Social networks for finding crooks, etc. IMO that is a good thing! If they are stupid enough to post pictures of themselves after robbing banks, etc. they deserve to get caught! I know my old agency uses them for finding many things. I know one State Investigator who uses it to find people on disability leave or medical retirement who post pictures of themselves doing athletic things like tennis, etc.
If that is all it takes, I know a LOT of folks that will be branded racist, violence prone, homophobic, and any other number of labels. If I were a lawyer looking for a law-suit goldmine, this would be it.
I think I have a canadate(s)..
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/righthaven-survival-bid/
Righthaven Says It Owns News Articles It’s Suing Over — for Real This Time
By David Kravets Email Author, June 24, 2011, Categories: The Courts, intellectual property
Copyright troll Righthaven told a federal judge Thursday that it has revised its contract with the Las Vegas Review-Journal to give it full copyright ownership over some of the newspapers’ content. It’s a bid to squelch a legal controversy over whether it has the right to sue bloggers who’ve quoted from the articles without permission.
Three decisions in the past week found that Righthaven, which has lodged more than 200 suits, never had standing to sue over content produced by Stephens Media publications, including the Review-Journal. In one ruling, U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt dismissed Righthaven’s well-publicized case against the Democratic Underground blog, finding that Righthaven attempted to “manufacture” standing to sue. In that case, Democratic Underground was targeted for posting four paragraphs from a 34-paragraph story published by the paper.
Hunt noted that Righthaven and Stephens Media had agreed to share the proceeds of any damage awards or settlements — but Stephens Media kept ownership of the copyrights in the articles, which meant Righthaven had no right to sue over the work. Two other Righthaven cases met the same fate this week.
With its entire business model at risk, Righthaven countered this week, asking Judge Hunt to reopen the case and allow Democratic Underground to be held liable again for last August’s alleged infringement. Righthaven said the year-old agreement between Stephens Media and Righthaven has been altered, and now gives Righthaven standing to sue.
“… Under the amendment, Righthaven is the assignee and sole owner of the copyrighted work at issue (.pdf) in this case,” Righthaven told Judge Hunt in a filing Thursday.
Whether Hunt will reopen the matter is unclear. Last week, he called the amended agreement “cosmetic,” but did not rule on its validity.
Righthaven, which received a $500,000 investment from Stephens Media, still hopes it can make a scalable business out of suing people for clipping newspaper articles online.
Steve Gibson, Righthaven’s CEO, said in an interview last week that he was unfazed by the recent rulings against him. Because the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is three years, that gives him plenty of time to build a paper trail with Stephens Media that can withstand the court challenges.
The Copyright Act allows for damages of up to $150,000 per infringement.
More than 100 bloggers and websites settled with Righthaven before the issue of Righthaven’s standing to sue was brought to light. They are now mulling potential legal recourse.
I think I have a canadate(s)..
I was referring to a group of people being denied positions because of information being given to companies by Social Intelligence Corp. Pictures, groups one is a member of, and statements taken out of context; thereby "labeling" someone as racist or violence prone, etc. is businesses being scared of their own shadow.
I was referring to a group of people being denied positions because of information being given to companies by Social Intelligence Corp. Pictures, groups one is a member of, and statements taken out of context; thereby "labeling" someone as racist or violence prone, etc. is businesses being scared of their own shadow.
I have to admit to a slight chuckle here. Where I work is decidedly anti-gun, as are most of the folks in the organization. And I like guns - although I generally don't talk about them too much. Well...maybe a little too much...:D
So some years ago, one of my work friends told me that his son would really like to shoot a machine gun. I suspect he thought he was calling a bluff - except it wasn't a bluff. I really do own a working M60 MG (Yes, I have the papers, have paid the treasury tax, and am in full and voluntary compliance with the various laws). His son enjoyed shooting it...he enjoyed it, too!
Will SIC (Social Intelligence Corp.) report me as a gun nut? Perhaps. But I doubt that will surprise anyone that knows me. :cool:
I was referring to a group of people being denied positions because of information being given to companies by Social Intelligence Corp. Pictures, groups one is a member of, and statements taken out of context; thereby "labeling" someone as racist or violence prone, etc. is businesses being scared of their own shadow.
And I was suggestion a group of people that will ligate the shiite out of anyone for the illegal misappropriation of "copyrighted material",, there is an implied linkage..
If you(anyone) feels they were denied for cause, these 1L students will take it to court..
If it weren't for facebook my camera would never have been recovered that I lost two weeks ago rock climbing :D
I'm curious how they found me... :confused:
Ok, I go in and say "I don't have a facebook account" How will that work?
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=628&sid=2793651
MVP
Ok, I go in and say "I don't have a facebook account" How will that work?MVP
You can bet PS account is just as good as well as archived.
Some of you may be interested in the new information center at Bluffdale...link
follows:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
And I thought my liquid cooled many, many core systems were fast...
bs
Meh, poor key management and application will fall faster than the NSA brute forcing the entire 256 bit key space, then again, this has happened before[1] and I am sure it will happen again. The weakest link in cryptography is almost always laziness, repetitiveness and lack of SA.
On second thought, with all that storage and processing power, a dictionary of the entire 256 bit key space is possible...
[1]http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/venona/index.shtml
Team Sergeant
03-21-2012, 09:40
You can bet PS account is just as good as well as archived.
Some of you may be interested in the new information center at Bluffdale...link
follows:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
And I thought my liquid cooled many, many core systems were fast...
bs
Except here most go by a made-up screen name. And in order to get their real name and IP addreses you would have to go through me first.... wanna try? :munchin ;)
Except here most go by a made-up screen name. And in order to get their real name and IP addreses you would have to go through me first.... wanna try? :munchin ;)
Lol, no reason to sir, I'm on your side. Besides won't be much of a challenge for ya, I'm just a poor old man geek...:D