jim_dow_jones

Why not? Do you have to share the views of every single person within a group to be considered a supporter? What if they vote for every pro-LGBT politician that runs for office? What if they vote for every pro-LGBT legislation that they come across? What if they give support and words of affirmation to LGBT family members that are close to them? Why is he suddenly not a supporter because he disagrees with a small part of the discussion? This seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

In most instances you are stealing views from the original creator and as a result of those lost views, revenue.

If you are a content creator on youtube and I reupload your video and place ads on it, I am stealing ad revenue from you.

By violating the copyright of the content you are stealing the creators money. I'm surprised the meme that copyright violation is "different" than stealing is still a meme. Yes, copyright violation is not "stealing", but the majority of the time the end result is "stealing" money from the content creators.

Does anyone else open Waze only momentarily to make sure their primary route does not have significant traffic? I don't need it to direct me the entire drive, so I just quickly check to make sure there isn't some catastrophic accident that will block my path. After that I shut it down, put on a podcast, and go on my merry way.

My joke was poorly received. I'll do better next time.

It's okay, I only use Incognito mode.

"TO READ THE FULL STORY SUBSCRIBE OR SIGN IN"

closes tab

That's very noble, but I don't want to live in a world where one moral vigilante hacker cowboy dictates what world we live in. It seems much more reasonable to come together as a people and vote on what we can and cannot do. After we vote, we can write down what the majority has decided and then demand individuals adhere to those policies. We could then call those policies "law". Seems much more reasonable to me.

The reason to think and speak in such a manner (with regard to law) is because we live in a society where we have a social contract with all of the other people and businesses in it. It is frowned upon for individuals to go around and commit illegal acts that they deem ethical because of that social contract. It would be chaos if we did not adhere to the laws that society has agreed upon. This is why we come together and vote on what we deem to be unethical and make it illegal.

No, that doesn't sound like a good situation. You want to know some other big companies that have been hacked? - LinkedIn, MySpace, Adobe, Dropbox, DailyMotion, Sony, Kickstarter, Equifax... ad infinitum. Do these companies also deserve to have their data deleted?

You know what other services have data that contains photos of your "YOUR KIDS"? Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Photobucket, and pretty much every other tech company with hosting services. If these companies get hacked, do they deserve to have their data deleted? The answer is no.

Companies that practice bad security and potentially expose sensitive data to bad actors should be fined or shutdown via the proper legal channels. In the more extreme cases, I think short jail terms should be considered for those responsible depending on the extent of the damage caused.

Their security was bad, no doubt. I don't see how that justifies deleting their data, though.

I see no reason to praise the hacker. He destroyed a legitimate company's private data for no purpose other than his flawed moral reasoning. The company provides a way for parents to monitor their children and other legitimate business practices. Obviously, the software can be used for nefarious purposes but so can almost any other software. U.S. representatives and senators try to ban encryption using the same exact flawed reasoning.

Richard Stallman was right. We didn't listen!

You are correct. There is no current reporting that claims these were set off intentionally. However, I'm curious if there could be a valid motive for both states to purposely set off these false alarms. It does seem like a pretty big coincidence that both states happen to get these false alarms in relatively short time frame. I have already seen conspiracy posts making claims about these alarms being purposely set off, but they never provide a motive. Just curious if anyone can think of a valid one.

Wow, that's a pretty big coincidence. What would be the purpose of both states intentionally setting off false alarms?

It's a bad thing when you're not being honest.

"...we shared many of the same core values..."

Why not just say, "They made us an offer we couldn't resist. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)"