It's now all over the media, and I really don't see that much difference between this and the PicScout business model:
http://tinyurl.com/7rykvhf
http://tinyurl.com/78vf6ro
How is this different from the Google Street View people storming into these people's houses, sticking a USB stick in their laptop, and downloading anything they please?
How is PicScout's rudebot any different when they bang into your server to suck out information that's none of their business and it has been made clear that they are not to go there?
VKT loves to say that just because he leaves his keys in the car's ignition, that doesn't give you the right to climb in and drive off. Really? So just because our servers can't be easily secured from PicScout's gross intrusions, that gives THEM the right to come in and take whatever they want on our bandwidth nickel and sell it to anyone for their trollish purposes? The guy's trying to have it both ways and I'm not buying it for a second.
How is it that gathering "evidence" against a person in this manner does NOT require a warrant or court order, and how can it be argued that any evidence thus collected could be admissible in court?
Even the Department of Homeland Security has to get a warrant or court order to be able to collect electronic information, or any kind of private information, for that matter. That doesn't necessarily stop them from doing surveillance, but they are well aware of what would stick in court and what would get thrown out.
This needs to be made specific: PicScout evidence collected without an appropriate court order or warrant is NOT admissible in court. That won't stop them from rudely snooping, but it would make their business model change DRASTICALLY. They would only be worth hiring in the US if there is a very specific case where the surveillance can be justified and is approved by judicial oversight. No more gill netting for the trollbot.
Fair is fair. We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights for some very good reasons. I'm not done using my civil rights so I think I'l stand up for them.
http://tinyurl.com/7rykvhf
http://tinyurl.com/78vf6ro
How is this different from the Google Street View people storming into these people's houses, sticking a USB stick in their laptop, and downloading anything they please?
How is PicScout's rudebot any different when they bang into your server to suck out information that's none of their business and it has been made clear that they are not to go there?
VKT loves to say that just because he leaves his keys in the car's ignition, that doesn't give you the right to climb in and drive off. Really? So just because our servers can't be easily secured from PicScout's gross intrusions, that gives THEM the right to come in and take whatever they want on our bandwidth nickel and sell it to anyone for their trollish purposes? The guy's trying to have it both ways and I'm not buying it for a second.
How is it that gathering "evidence" against a person in this manner does NOT require a warrant or court order, and how can it be argued that any evidence thus collected could be admissible in court?
Even the Department of Homeland Security has to get a warrant or court order to be able to collect electronic information, or any kind of private information, for that matter. That doesn't necessarily stop them from doing surveillance, but they are well aware of what would stick in court and what would get thrown out.
This needs to be made specific: PicScout evidence collected without an appropriate court order or warrant is NOT admissible in court. That won't stop them from rudely snooping, but it would make their business model change DRASTICALLY. They would only be worth hiring in the US if there is a very specific case where the surveillance can be justified and is approved by judicial oversight. No more gill netting for the trollbot.
Fair is fair. We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights for some very good reasons. I'm not done using my civil rights so I think I'l stand up for them.