61–67 of 67 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Criminal" is a term that only applies if you are caught.
No, "convicted criminal" is a term that only applies if you are caught.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, "convicted criminal" is a term that only applies if you are caught.
No, "convicted criminal" is a term that only applies if you are caught, prosecuted, law enforcement carries out the investigation properly, you're not lucky with the pick of the judge, they have better lawyers than you do, and you don't accept a plea bargain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, a lot of this is the flip side of FaceBook's "changes are pushed to the live site as soon as they're checked in" policy. That lets them innovate quickly, but also means that whenever anyone screws up, it's immediately visible in a very public way. Other companies have release processes and QA procedures to stop this.
Every single line of code is peer reviewed by at least 2 people before it can be pushed.
What happens to the reviewers that let this thing slip through, btw?
"Chat is down for maintenance at this time"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are missing the point on that one. Kernel maintainers are striving to produce a good product. Those that "trample privacy" are not out to produce anything except profits. Think about the hypocrisy that would be involved if they were offended by their chats being published if they push for similar data (others' data) to be public.
So vigilante justice is morally defensible now? I'd like to hear about your complete ethical system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, "convicted criminal" is a term that only applies if you are caught, prosecuted, law enforcement carries out the investigation properly, you're not lucky with the pick of the judge, they have better lawyers than you do, and you don't accept a plea bargain.
Taking the plea bargain counts as a conviction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hope you're just joking, as I think you are. Think again. If it would have been me discovering this (not that I'm nearly smart enough to do so, but hypothetically speaking) I would have definitely used it against FB management. They run roughshod over the rights of their users every chance they get, they really need a wake-up call about why privacy matters and that they ought to be more responsible when it comes…
And that would have made you a criminal.