Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anatomy of a Privacy Nightmare

Roblimo posted more than 3 years ago | from the jump-in-a-hole-and-pull-it-in-behind-you dept.

Privacy 275

itwbennett writes "Gennette Cordova knows first-hand how impossible it is to erase yourself from the Internet. The 21-year-old college student was the hapless recipient of a photo of a Congressman Anthony Weiner bulging in his boxers. Ms. Cordova then 'watched in sheer disbelief as my name, age, location, links to any social networking site I've ever used, my old phone numbers and pictures have been passed along from stranger to stranger.' She then tried to remove her personal information from the web, one social network at a time. But the fact is, 'until a site's Webmaster removes the offending content, it will remain accessible via search engines like Google,' says blogger Dan Tynan."

cancel ×

275 comments

Don't put it out there in the first place (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321494)

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                                              Version 3, 29 June 2007

  Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

                                                        Preamble

    The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for
software and other kinds of works.

    The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed
to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast,
the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to
share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free
software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the
GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to
any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to
your programs, too.

    When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

    To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you
these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have
certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if
you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

    For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they
know their rights.

    Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps:
(1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

    For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains
that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and
authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as
changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to
authors of previous versions.

    Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run
modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer
can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of
protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic
pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to
use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we
have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those
products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we
stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions
of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

    Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents.
States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of
software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to
avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could
make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that
patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

    The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

                                              TERMS AND CONDITIONS

    0. Definitions.

    "This License" refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

    "Copyright" also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of
works, such as semiconductor masks.

    "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this
License. Each licensee is addressed as "you". "Licensees" and
"recipients" may be individuals or organizations.

    To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the
earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.

    A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based
on the Program.

    To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying,
distribution (with or without modification), making available to the
public, and in some countries other activities as well.

    To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through
a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

    An interactive user interface displays "Appropriate Legal Notices"
to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible
feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2)
tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the
extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the
work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If
the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a
menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.

    1. Source Code.

    The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source
form of a work.

    A "Standard Interface" means an interface that either is an official
standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of
interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that
is widely used among developers working in that language.

    The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
implementation is available to the public in source code form. A
"Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
(if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.

    The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities. However, it does not include the work's
System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source
includes interface definition files associated with source files for
the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
subprograms and other parts of the work.

    The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users
can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding
Source.

    The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that
same work.

    2. Basic Permissions.

    All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a
covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its
content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your
rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.

    You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose
of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you
with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with
the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do
not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works
for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction
and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of
your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

    Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under
the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10
makes it unnecessary.

    3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.

    No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological
measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article
11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or
similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such
measures.

    When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention
is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to
the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or
modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's
users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of
technological measures.

    4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

    You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

    You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,
and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

    5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.

    You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

        a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
        it, and giving a relevant date.

        b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is
        released under this License and any conditions added under section
        7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to
        "keep intact all notices".

        c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
        License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This
        License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
        additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
        regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no
        permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
        invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

        d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
        Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
        interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
        work need not make them do so.

    A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program,
in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
"aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not
used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work
in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
parts of the aggregate.

    6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

    You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
in one of these ways:

        a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
        (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
        Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium
        customarily used for software interchange.

        b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
        (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
        written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
        long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
        model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
        copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
        product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
        medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
        more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
        conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
        Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

        c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the
        written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This
        alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and
        only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord
        with subsection 6b.

        d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
        place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
        Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
        further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
        Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to
        copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source
        may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)
        that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain
        clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the
        Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the
        Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
        available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

        e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided
        you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding
        Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no
        charge under subsection 6d.

    A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
included in conveying the object code work.

    A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any
tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family,
or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation
into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product,
doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular
product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a
typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status
of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user
actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product
is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial
commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent
the only significant mode of use of the product.

    "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods,
procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install
and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from
a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must
suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object
code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because
modification has been made.

    If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or
specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as
part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the
User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a
fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the
Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied
by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply
if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has
been installed in ROM).

    The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a
requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates
for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for
the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a
network may be denied when the modification itself materially and
adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and
protocols for communication across the network.

    Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided,
in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly
documented (and with an implementation available to the public in
source code form), and must require no special password or key for
unpacking, reading or copying.

    7. Additional Terms.

    "Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this
License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions.
Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall
be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent
that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions
apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately
under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by
this License without regard to the additional permissions.

    When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option
remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of
it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own
removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place
additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work,
for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

        a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the
        terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or

        b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
        author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
        Notices displayed by works containing it; or

        c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
        requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
        reasonable ways as different from the original version; or

        d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
        authors of the material; or

        e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
        trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or

        f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that
        material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of
        it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for
        any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on
        those licensors and authors.

    All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains
a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this
License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms
of that license document, provided that the further restriction does
not survive such relicensing or conveying.

    If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you
must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the
additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating
where to find the applicable terms.

    Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the
form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions;
the above requirements apply either way.

    8. Termination.

    You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly
provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or
modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third
penis of section 11).

    However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your
license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a)
provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and
finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright
holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means
prior to 60 days after the cessation.

    Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is
reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the
violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have
received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that
copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after
your receipt of the notice.

    Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the
licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under
this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently
reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same
material under section 10.

    9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

    You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work
occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However,
nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or
modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do
not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a
covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

    10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

    Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible
for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

    An "entity transaction" is a transaction transferring control of an
organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an
organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered
work results from an entity transaction, each party to that
transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever
licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could
give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the
Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if
the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.

    You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may
not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of
rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that
any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for
sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.

    11. Patents.

    A "contributor" is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this
License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The
work thus licensed is called the contributor's "contributor version".

    A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims
owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version,
but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For
purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant
patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
this License.

    Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
propagate the contents of its contributor version.

    In the following three paragraphs, a "patent license" is any express
agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent
(such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to
sue for patent infringement). To "grant" such a patent license to a
party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a
patent against the party.

    If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license,
and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone
to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a
publicly available network server or other readily accessible means,
then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so
available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the
patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner
consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent
license to downstream recipients. "Knowingly relying" means you have
actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the
covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work
in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that
country that you have reason to believe are valid.

    If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or
arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a
covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties
receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify
or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license
you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered
work and works based on it.

    A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within
the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is
conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are
specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered
work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is
in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment
to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying
the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the
parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory
patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work
conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily
for and in connection with specific products or compilations that
contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement,
or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

    Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting
any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may
otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.

    12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.

    If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a
covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may
not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you
to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey
the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this
License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.

    13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single
combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this
License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work,
but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License,
section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the
combination as such.

    14. Revised Versions of this License.

    The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

    Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General
Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the
option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered
version or of any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the
GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published
by the Free Software Foundation.

    If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's
public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you
to choose that version for the Program.

    Later license versions may give you additional or different
permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any
author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a
later version.

    15. Disclaimer of Warranty.

    THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY
OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM
IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF
ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

    16. Limitation of Liability.

    IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS
THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY
GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE
USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF
DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD
PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS),
EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES.

    17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.

    If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided
above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms,
reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates
an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the
Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a
copy of the Program in return for a fee.

                                          END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

                        How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

    If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

    To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

        <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
        Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>

        This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
        it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
        the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
        (at your option) any later version.

        This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
        but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
        MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
        GNU General Public License for more details.

        You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
        along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

    If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short
notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:

        <program> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
        This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
        This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
        under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, your program's commands
might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an "about box".

    You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school,
if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary.
For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

    The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you
may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with
the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
Public License instead of this License. But first, please read
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.

Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321522)

It happened to her. Just like one day it could happen to you.

No, it won't. But that's just because I am one boring person and I don't share much online. But hats off to your ridiculous fear mongering. While Gennette Cordova herself wasn't a celebrity or public figure, she worked for one and probably should have been careful about broadcasting that to the world.

I don't care if I work at goddamn McDonalds, I'm not going to associate my employer with anything online. One day I'm going to get done with work, get on twitter/facebook/slashdot and paraphrase Fight Club:

Because one of these days some manatee is going to come into the restaurant demanding his slaw and this button-down, Oxford-cloth psycho might just snap, and then stalk from drive-thru to drive-thru with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into customers and co-workers. This might be someone you've known for years. Someone very, very close to you.

And I'm not going to be fired for venting.

In 1568 if you used a Gutenberg press to print off everything about you and you distributed it by hand to all the other serfs in your kingdom would you be surprised that they know it!? No? You grasp that concept?! Well what is so hard to grasp about putting your freaking life story on the internet only to be shocked when it's fed back to you by everyone on the goddamn planet?! It was true then and it's true now. Keep what you want to remain private as private. What changed after she got the photo that suddenly made her aware that everyone can see her profiles? What changed? Now other people are posting that same information? Because it was publicly available to anyone and any search engine? Ridiculous. Hoisted by her own petard.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (4, Insightful)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321564)

Did she work for him? Everything I read said she was just a student and had never met him. I haven't read that much, though, so I could be wrong.

And a lot of these things she didn't even put on the internet. Go to a site like Spokeo.com and put in your name. I know I didn't put my house value on the internet but yet there it is.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321870)

> I know I didn't put my house value on the internet but yet there it is.

You probably paid a settlement company to register your title at the local courthouse, and you even paid the fee. Public information is, well you know, surprise!

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321906)

That's exactly my point. There is a ton of information publicly available that I didn't directly put there myself.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (1)

EvilStein (414640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322148)

I hate shitsites like Spokeo because they decided to opt you in to their "service" first, and you have to specifically go opt *out* - which I did. At the time, their process sucked, and they pretty much required you sign up for their site in order to opt out of their shit.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36322230)

Then you used a bad example, since the settlement company was your lawfully paid agent. If you did not know what you were hiring someone to do on your behalf, then you should have read some of those papers you were signing. That is my point.

Had I, a random, snarky AC, posted your home's value online, you would have a point.

Or maybe you meant that you did not realize that "filing at the local courthouse" == "publicly posting". It does. You essentially hired someone to post information about you and now seem surprised about it since you didn't do it yourself.

If this was an example of someone taking a picture of you showing off your new Chilly Willy tattoo at a party and then posting it to their Facebook page, then I wouldn't argue your point. I agree that there is a lot of information that some would consider private in public places that people did not place in public themselves, I just feel you used a bad example.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321966)

It is, however the rules on all that was made back well before the internet or even the grandparents of the people who would eventually create the internet were born. There is ultimately no solution to the problem so long as the media feels entitled to release the names of people who may or may not have done anything wrong. It's one thing to release the names of politicians that have been caught cheating, it's quite another to release the names of people who just received the photos with or without any participation on their part.

Perhaps what we need to do is loosen up on the libel laws to allow people who get ensnared in somebody else' scandal to file suit against the papers that ultimately libel them. There's no reason why a paper's profit motive shouldn't be sufficient to replace the normal malice requirement.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321956)

Go to a site like Spokeo.com

Doesn't even get the right country for me. Not even the right continent.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (1)

Dipsomaniac (1102131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322400)

Doesn't have any record for me at all, and my name, as far as I know, is unique in my country.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (0)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321566)

No, it won't. But that's just because I am one boring person and I don't share much online. But hats off to your ridiculous fear mongering. While Gennette Cordova herself wasn't a celebrity or public figure, she worked for one and probably should have been careful about broadcasting that to the world.

Oh, yes, it's her fault for revealing who she worked for. I love your logic. Do you apply that to women who wear skimpy outfits in dark alleys too?

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (2)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321698)

Nice attempt to deflect the point. While she may not have deserved what happened to her (much as rape victims don't deserve to be raped), she could have taken steps to minimize her risk (much as women would be well-advised to not wear skimpy outfits in dark alleys).

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321762)

I assume you leave both your home and car doors unlocked, since its not your fault if someone steals something from your house or you car.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (1)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322074)

Do you apply that to women who wear skimpy outfits in dark alleys too?

We all know that women in skimpy outfits should stay in open, well lit areas where the the male and lesbian population can enjoy looking at them. That's how those stories got started.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36322286)

The parent baldly asserts many things, apparently with the end in mind that a woman shouldn't be taking penises day in and day out from every passerby. I hope I don't need to point out what's wrong with that logic.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36322316)

Playing picture swap with a married man and a member of congress are both pursuits that are obviously going to end well.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36322396)

There is a difference between culpability and responsiblity. The rapist is culpable, the woman wearing a skimpy outfit in a dark alley in a seedy part of town takes on responsiblity for being raped due to her actions. Being an adult is understanding that actions have consequences, and assuming responsibility for your actions and their consequences.

I am a hispanic male with a noticeable accent. If I went drinking at a known local white power or skinhead bar and got beat up, stabbed or shot, I would not be culpable, but I would be responsible for being beat up. Same thing if I went walking wearing expensive clothes and jewelery in the middle of the night in a high crime area. As an adult, I should be able to predict those very likely outcome from my actions.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (2)

jaskelling (1927116) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321628)

To an extent, you're correct. The pictures, current location, etc. are items she put online herself and only she can be blamed for them coming back to bite her. HOWEVER, things like phone numbers, former addresses, drivers license information, income from tax returns, associations via family members, past properties owned or rented, and MUCH more is all available online from public databases. They're there for the taking by anyone who has the time and/or money to do the searches. In that case, that is information that neither she nor anyone else has any control over. Get one bit and it's easy to link to others through a myriad of ways. Can it happen to you? Yes. Is it likely? No. But don't believe that staying off of social networking sites and the like will keep your information off the internet. That's just sticking your head in the sand.

Only in the US maybe (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321992)

"drivers license information" not available online or offline to private person, you have to work for the police, or to the DMV , or insurance of the persons. In other word somebody abusing its work to get data it should not spread, and that is always a possibility.

", income from tax returns, " not available at all here, unless you are a worker for the tax departement or for the firm "controlling" departement. But not available online whatsoever.

"associations via family members, past properties owned or rented," Not available online , except under the potential form of downloadable telephon book. That one I give you anybody a bit clever could save those database year after years.

"and MUCH more is all available online from public databases" no , not from online DB. Some maybe from offline, some from people breaking their work confidence, but certainly not online (except in the US maybe). Other country have privacy law stopping such crap to go online unless leaked illegaly.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (1)

CrispyZorro (1809948) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322040)

she put online herself and only she can be blamed for them coming back to bite her

I think it is interesting that the conversation turns to putting fault on the victim for not protecting his or herself rather than the turn that society has taken where nothing is off limits. Look no further than the competitive-strategy choice of reputation destruction over demonstration of competency. In an ideal world we wouldn't reward this behavior with our attention.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321700)

Just as an example, though.

There is a fellow in Vienna, VA named David Johnson who is interested in buying Wolverine Origins, Kurt Vonnegut, and some MTS3K videos.

Seems like he also dressed up as Joker on Halloween in 2008 and perhaps has a cute Asian GF? Likes smoking cigars.

I've not even heard of half of the bands this fellow likes. Maybe I am just old. Squij mix?

Get the idea?

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36322056)

Next you'll accuse him of being Aladdin Seine from Minnesota.

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321950)

Parent is not a troll... It's only saying the truth nobody wants to hear. These damn whiners need to learn about life in the big city, and grow a skin, 'toughen the fuck up', whatever.. This is all a thinly disguised attempt to get the authorities involved and justify censorship.. Screw them..

Christ! It wasn't even Weiner's wiener, so the damn summary is way off

Something is not quite right here... (1)

PhreakOfTime (588141) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322060)

When I went to read the article that is linked, I went down into the comments. The FIRST one, among many others along the same line, is from an online 'reputation' company basically advertising how important their services are because of this convenient incident. Included is a way to contact them for their services.

On what planet do bloggers suddenly allow ads like this in their comments... when they are not working together?

Re:Oh the Drivel You Will Spew (2)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322108)

I agree, doing nothing social is both safe and lonely.

Worst Summary Ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321528)

The 21-year-old college student was the hapless recipient of a photo of a Congressman Anthony Weiner bulging in his boxers.

WTF does that mean? The photo was in his boxers? The Congressman's boxers were bulging? What does any of this have to do with the guy's net accounts?

like watching a twelve-year-old (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321582)

it was amusing watching "The Daily Show" as Jon Stewart heroically struggled to steer away from the all-too-obvious Weiner [google.com] jokes.

Re:like watching a twelve-year-old (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321752)

Yup, the best part was his disbelief of the "size" of the "member" in question.
It is obviously a "foreign object".

Re:Worst Summary Ever (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321630)

WTF does that mean? The photo was in his boxers? The Congressman's boxers were bulging? What does any of this have to do with the guy's net accounts?

A tweet with a link to a picture of a left-leaning erect penis (within boxers) was posted "@" her via Tony Weiner's twitter account. The Congressman says he was hacked (plausible given the left-leaning wiener), and since he was hacked, there is no story here. Move along. Move along.

Re:Worst Summary Ever (2)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321896)

Tony - The problem wasn't the alleged hacking... the problem was the odd behavior for someone who supposedly had their account hacked... You know the same way that TO's brother posted some stuff on his Twitter account. The simple question of, "So, that wasn't a picture of you?" was met with extreme anger, and no answer. A simple chuckle, and "No, but I wish it was" would have ended the story right there.

In fact, even if you said, "Yes, it was me. I honestly don't know how someone got that picture" this would have gone away very quickly again.

The questions about getting the FBI or some other agency involved were handled perfectly. Claiming it's harmless and a prank was an excellent defense... but seriously, 15 more seconds of handling that last question would have saved you a lot of ridicule. You were soooo close.

Re:Worst Summary Ever (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322418)

That last interview with Wolf Blitzer, it sounded like he was saying that there ARE pics like that of him, but he couldn't say if that was one of them nor how it got onto his twitter feed. There was a fair bit of tap dancing in his answers though, so who knows... more importantly, who cares?

-Rick

Re:Worst Summary Ever (1)

Jhon (241832) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321934)

"...and since he was hacked, there is no story here."

And if he says he was hacked, it's true, no? And his embarrassing attempts to deflect questions from the press don't suggest he just MIGHT be playing a little loose with the truth?

*IF* (and that's a big *IF*) he is lying, he (and all public servants (elected or appointed)) who engage is such compromise behavior put themselves up for risk of blackmail should the wrong person/group find out. And as public servants, their actions on behalf of the public may be compromised/corrupted.

So, yes -- there *IS* some concern here... And since a simple call to the FBI would have reviled the source IP (and effectively ruled out the Congressman) there ARE unanswered questions. His statements saying he didn't send the pic but that he "can't say with certitude" that the pic *ISNT* him opens all kinds of questions for reasonable people.

Re:Worst Summary Ever (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322170)

A tweet with a link to a picture of a left-leaning erect penis (within boxers) ...

As Jon Stewart noted, apparently both Congressman Weiner and the penis lean hard to the left.

Re:Worst Summary Ever (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322408)

And since Weiner won't confirm nor deny that the picture is actually him (which is a little odd), that line seems a little premature. Unless the poster knows something we don't.

n00dz pleaze (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321530)

links?

Alleged picture (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321542)

There is significant evidence that Weinergate was a frame set-up from the beginng. I do feel sorry for this girl, as she is as much a victim of this mess as Rep. Anthony Weiner, but please don't accuse the representative of actually sending the photo directly to her - she was the vehicle of a hack-job, not the target.

Re:Alleged picture (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321600)

What evidence? You mean Weiner saying it was photoshopped? Or do you mean someone claiming that the yfrog screenshot was photoshopped?

You know the best evidence that it wasn't faked? He was able to delete the photo almost immediately. If his account was actually hacked, he would no longer have access to it.

People do stupid things all the time. Sending someone a picture of your penis bulging through your underwear is actually kind of tame when it comes to "stupid things politicians do."

Re:Alleged picture (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321760)

You know the best evidence that it wasn't faked? He was able to delete the photo almost immediately. If his account was actually hacked, he would no longer have access to it.

Wow... you're a real fucking moron, aren't you? Why, precisely, would he "no longer have access to it"? Because you say so? Idiot.

People do stupid things all the time.

You mean, like posting idiotic drivel on Slashdot?

Re:Alleged picture (5, Informative)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321814)

You're assuming that whenever somebody hacks something the first thing they do is change the access credentials. However, doing that is actually more likely to clue in the person being hacked about the compromise. If you don't change the credentials you can sit on the access for a length of time until you've done all you want with them.

However in this specific case I agree it probably wasn't a real hack. For chrissake he won't even deny the picture was of himself.

Re:Alleged picture (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322258)

So you mean someone who's trying to frame a set-up would change the passwords AND the emails to an account in order to help keep his frame job secret?

Damn, that's what I've been doing wrong!

Re:Alleged picture (1)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321840)

A picture of a man's junk coming from a guy called "Rep. Anthony Wiener", going to some random student. It sounds like this is in reverse, this is a targeted prank by one of the girl's acquaintances. I mean, the man's name is "Wiener" and there's a picture of a man's gentleman's sausage coming from him, that is too perfect, it sounds like this girl probably rebuffed the advances of the wrong nerd.

Re:Alleged picture (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322012)

I suspect he actually pissed off people on the other side of the political spectrum. He's a fire-breathing-liberal type, and Bret Breitbart is involved in this, so I'm automatically going take the whole mess with a grain of salt. Political infighting is nasty.

Re:Alleged picture (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36322150)

A picture of a man's junk coming from a guy called "Rep. Anthony Wiener", going to some random student. It sounds like this is in reverse, this is a targeted prank by one of the girl's acquaintances. I mean, the man's name is "Wiener" and there's a picture of a man's gentleman's sausage coming from him, that is too perfect, it sounds like this girl probably rebuffed the advances of the wrong nerd.

It wasn't sent from an account that was simply titled "Rep. Anthony Weiner", it was sent from Rep Anthony Weiner's Twitter account, which is also titled "Rep. Anthony Weiner". It also was not just some random student. It was a student who was following Weiner.

Also, if this were a hack, the FBI should be involved. I know I would want the FBI involved if it was my career on the line. So far, Weiner has refused any FBI involvement and wants to handle the "investigation" by a private firm, one that would be hired and paid by him, of course.

Some more facts:
http://thenewsjunkie.com/2011/05/8-things-you-should-know-about-anthony-weiners-twitter-scandal/ [thenewsjunkie.com]

Pat attention to the Seattle bit and when she called him her "boyfriend".

Re:Alleged picture (1)

JK_the_Slacker (1175625) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322284)

If it's a setup, then why on God's Green Earth can't Rep. Weiner "Say with certitude" that the picture is not of him?

Re:Alleged picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36322342)

There is significant evidence that Weinergate was a frame set-up from the beginng.

[Citation Needed]

InterWeb? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321558)

What is an "InterWeb"????? are we just defining all kinds of sh1t these days or are these morons trying to coin the next stupid term?

It wasn't his Tweet (5, Interesting)

bughunter (10093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321562)

It wasn't him. He was set up using a "feature" of Yfrog that leaves a gaping security hole. [blogspot.com]

I submitted [slashdot.org] the story from CannonFire yesterday, but it's still pending.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321614)

But he's never categorically come out and stated that couldn't possibly be him, because there are no such photos of him.
Things That Make You Go HMMMMMM....

Re:It wasn't his Tweet (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321724)

OMG! Someone can't categorically deny that there may be a picture of him in his underwear. STRING HIM UP!!!
 
I think he's just being overly-cautious in his denial because he's one of those idiots who tries to be accurate in what he says while still being a politician. It's amazing how much shit you get for that; journalists may as well wear buttons saying "Please lie to us! It'll be easier for everyone."

Re:It wasn't his Tweet (2)

bughunter (10093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321734)

He has come out and said that it could be a photo of him, but if so, it was distributed without his knowledge or permission [nytimes.com] .

Considering the evidence that the photo was a plant, there is more than the necessary minimum reasonable doubt as to its origin.

I admit Weiner showed poor judgment his response to the situation. But just because he's inept at dealing with the situation doesn't mean he's guilty.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321782)

While I was thinking the same thing, I was thinking it was because he actually sent it (but didn't want to outright lie about it). However, the explanation of "he took the pic, but didn't send it" seems faintly plausible. Weirder things have happened. Occam would throw a fit, but I like that explanation.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321888)

The picture probably is of him. There's nothing wrong with having undie pics of yourself. The problem is when you distribute them unsolicited.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322244)

There's nothing wrong with having undie pics of yourself. The problem is when you distribute them unsolicited.

I'm not sure there's anything seriously wrong with that either. It's not technically obscene. I mean, some Calvin Klein ads and swimsuits show more. Granted, sending it to someone unsolicited may be rude or possibly inappropriate, though the recipient is an adult and without a request to stop it's not any sort of harassment.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet (2)

hamburger lady (218108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322234)

you prove that negative! prove it!

Re:It wasn't his Tweet (3, Funny)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321692)

Sorry, but I will NEVER click a link mentioning a "gaping hole" ever again.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet (3, Insightful)

Purpleslog (1645951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321716)

Well...that is the Congressman's current explanation. Looking at all the facts...it may or not be his. The tweet is most likely from him or from somebody screwing with him who know his secret Yfrog email id. His actions seem more like those of a person covering up an "oh shit ooops" than like a victim who got hacked. He does seem to not want to involve the vendors or law enforcement in investigating.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321922)

And if he was involving the cops, you (or someone else, it's entirely possible that you are a reasonably rational person) would be immediately invoking the "Striesand effect". This kind of a situation is really a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" problem.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322118)

Well...that is the Congressman's current explanation.

It's not the Congressman's explanation, it's the evidence found by two bloggers. Read the post here [blogspot.com] .

Looking at all the facts...

I've twice linked to a page that provides necessary and sufficient proof to exonerate the Congressman for anyone not filtering facts that don't support their favored conclusions.

Re:It wasn't his Tweet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36322318)

That blog has been repeatedly disproven by conservative bloggers and Rachel Maddow as well.
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/06/another-leaping-fail-yfrog-hack-needs-weiner-authorization/
http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2011/06/rachel-maddow-blog-on-lefty-yfrog-theory-theres-no-proof-of-the-spoof-in-this-debunkfail/

All it does is show that it is possible it was hacked, but presents no evidence whatsoever it was. Not only that, Weiner has admitted it might actually be his.
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/06/weiner-confesses-maybe-it-started-out-being-a-photograph-of-mine-video/

  And in addition the yFrog CEO has come out to say publicly that there is no evidence that their password system was compromised.
http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2011/06/yfrog-ceo-no-reason-to-believe-weiners-security-was-violated/

Now, who's filtering facts again?

Thanks Slashdot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321568)

Because I had no idea who the woman was who involved in this scandal but now I know I can easily find her info because of this story. Googling now..... (Hell yeah, I'm posting anonymously)

Life gives you ilemons? (5, Funny)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321572)

Look, kid, you just got the kind of publicity money can hardly buy. Get on the phone to ICM, get an agent, and pitch a reality show to TLC pronto. You will be able to pay off the college tuition and buy a house for your mom.

You are going to be famous/notorious anyway. Might as well make a buck from it.

Re:Life gives you ilemons? (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321590)

Then burn life's house down, with lemons!

Re:Life gives you ilemons? (3, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321826)

Lemons are apparently the new cake. Great. I know the jokes were funny in the game, but referencing it constantly whenever someone so much as mentions lemons, moon rock, crushers, or potatoes just kills the joke. I would much prefer that we make our own jokes.

Or at least do something inventive with it. I'm sure there's some funny Monty Python/Portal combination jokes just waiting to be made.

Re:Life gives you ilemons? (1)

Rinikusu (28164) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321866)

Well, either turn lemons into lemonade... or golden showers....

She should cash in on her instant fame (2)

Relayman (1068986) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321578)

A true American would cash in on her fame while it lasts. Get free travel across the country doing talk shows. Get a big advance for that novel she was thinking of writing. Get paid $50,000 by the National Enquirer for her exclusive side of the story. Get an endorsement contract from Nike. There are endless possibilities.

Re:She should cash in on her instant fame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321680)

Seriously. She could even write her novel about this very incident. Plenty of talk shows would want to find out just how damaging it can be to an unknown who gets caught in the spotlight. She'll be famous! Oh wait...

Re:She should cash in on her instant fame (2)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322348)

And only in America you'd expect a private citizen to suck it up and be blamed upon failure to become rich in the process of sucking-it-up.

Like this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321672)

"Gennette Cordova knows first-hand how impossible it is"

" 'watched in sheer disbelief as my name, age, location...have been passed along from stranger to stranger"

Kind of like this?

What? (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321676)

I RTFA but couldn't find an explanation of how being sent a photo via twitter caused her personal information to be passed around the way the summary describes.

Re:What? (1)

pla (258480) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321880)

I RTFA but couldn't find an explanation of how being sent a photo via twitter caused her personal information to be passed around the way the summary describes.

It gave her her five minutes of fame. In the modern world, that amounts to basically having six billion stalkers.

Twitter only enters the equation because "OOOOH, bad boy congresscritter used a COMPUTER THINGAMABOB to sexually harass a staffer!" (no pun intended).

/semi-offtopic: Captcha of "ruined". Sometimes you really have to suspect the Sladmins deliberately make those things apropos of the subject matter.

Re:What? (1, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322134)

Because she ran to the media as an un|willing participant in breitbart's ongoing bullshit.

entirely caused by her actions

Slashdot: ever helpful (2)

PTBarnum (233319) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321690)

It's good to see that Slashdot is respecting this woman's desire not to have her name and age posted everywhere on the internet.

Re:Slashdot: ever helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321748)

Yeah, let's just ignore the news, who needs news, right?

Re:Slashdot: ever helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321856)

If it's on the internet, it's everywhere. If you don't want it everywhere, don't put it on the internet. There is no "helpful" in this situation. There is only dealing with the consequences of your short-sighted actions.

As usual there is an easy solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321794)

Don't put anything whatsoever private from yourself on the net, that you would not wish to see spread wide. People not realizing that must be either pretty much young, or idiot...

Try buying a house. (4, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321804)

Forget about crotch shot pics and twitter, try buying a house sometime. Suddenly just about everything about you is in the public records for web sites to mine and resell.

Transparency has always been used (1)

tacokill (531275) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322308)

County records, county tax appraisals, property records, court records, etc have always been public information. That precedent goes back hundreds of years so you should not be surprised people mine that information and use it for all kinds of purposes, including marketing.

Re:Try buying a house. (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322332)

This. The funny thing is how wrong most of that information is. My Experian file is page after page of some true stuff, some blatantly untrue stuff, some stuff mixed up with my father's file (apparently I started working at Boeing when I was 10 years old - would be nice, I'd just love that pension). Spokeo.com (suggested by another poster) has most of my 'personal profile' almost, but not entirely, wrong.

Of course, that could even be more of a problem if I suddenly became 'famous' which fortunately, seems unlikely.

A tricky problem (5, Interesting)

Salamander (33735) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321838)

I've long since gotten used to the idea that everything I say online - going back to Usenet days and even before - will stay with me forever. Some times you just have to remind people that it was X years ago and people/opinions change. Would you take advice from someone in mid-life whose opinions hadn't changed since their teens?

That's all garden-variety stuff by now, but I did have a more interesting case come up on my website. I had occasion to write about someone who was trying to scam people with an online "contest" that was rigged. Yes, I named names, especially after the guy (who went by more than one name BTW) tried to intimidate me with fake legal threats. Years later, I got email saying that he'd reformed, he was trying to get a job, but potential employers would Google for his name and find my site. Tough luck, I thought, and continued to think as the pleas kept coming every few months for years. What finally got my attention was when he mentioned that he now had a family. This little piece of history, no matter how valid, was now starting to affect *other people* who were completely innocent. While I don't believe in censorship, I do believe in the validity of the "statute of limitations" concept so I decided on a compromise. The article about this guy is still on my site, you can even find it by searching there, but you can't find it by searching on Google. (Robots.txt plus referer blocking specific to that post, for those who care.)

The lesson is that the existence of information and the ease with which it may be looked up are two different things. Dirt is just too easy to find, for the same reasons that gold is too hard: search engines' evaluation of "importance" or "relevance" doesn't always match any sane human's. While it should be *possible* to find someone's decade-old forum posts, perhaps it's not quite right for the most inflammatory thing they ever said to be the very first thing that shows up in a casual search . . . and it often will be, because controversy drives higher rankings. Making stuff just a little bit harder to find, like we all do here with low-rated comments and like I basically did in this little anecdote, deserves more frequent consideration as an alternative to deletion.

Re:A tricky problem (1)

Rudisaurus (675580) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322130)

[...]That's all garden-variety stuff by now, but I did have a more interesting case come up on my website. I had occasion to write about someone who was trying to scam people with an online "contest" that was rigged. Yes, I named names, especially after the guy (who went by more than one name BTW) tried to intimidate me with fake legal threats. Years later, I got email saying that he'd reformed, he was trying to get a job, but potential employers would Google for his name and find my site. Tough luck, I thought, and continued to think as the pleas kept coming every few months for years. What finally got my attention was when he mentioned that he now had a family. This little piece of history, no matter how valid, was now starting to affect *other people* who were completely innocent. [...]

Did you happen to check to confirm his story? Does he really have a family? Once a con artist, after all, ... and maybe it was potential marks, not employers, who were finding out his history by Googling him.

Re:A tricky problem (1)

Salamander (33735) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322168)

Valid questions. Yes, I did some homework to convince myself that the story was valid, but that would have made the anecdote too long. ;)

A reasonable compromise (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322250)

I feel for the guy. So will every teenager or young adult who ever did anything stupid or who ever publicly held values they now repudiate when it comes time to looking for a job and when their inability to get one hurts their family or they have to go on public assistance and all the taxpayers get hurt.

Hopefully, the teens of today that turn into the hiring managers of tomorrow will realize that people do change and a person's irresponsible past and the fact that they've learned from it is an asset not a liability.

Re:A tricky problem (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322254)

This little piece of history, no matter how valid, was now starting to affect *other people* who were completely innocent. While I don't believe in censorship, I do believe in the validity of the "statute of limitations" concept so I decided on a compromise.

- pffft, what a softie :) You should CRASH HIM to hell. Think about it - what if he has kids? Now his genes will be passed on, and that's clearly a problem. You should nuke them all from the orbit - that's the only way to be sure.

Re:A tricky problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36322322)

Tough luck, I thought, and continued to think as the pleas kept coming every few months for years. What finally got my attention was when he mentioned that he now had a family

I'd tell him he should have thought of all this before he started conning people. I still wouldn't let that be my problem. Also, are you sure he wasn't just making up that bullshit to get your sympathy?

I have a huge issue with people who try to con me. If I had one of those fuckers on the ropes, I'd never let up.

Re:A tricky problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36322358)

While I don't believe in censorship, I do believe in the validity of the "statute of limitations" concept so I decided on a compromise. The article about this guy is still on my site, you can even find it by searching there, but you can't find it by searching on Google. (Robots.txt plus referer blocking specific to that post, for those who care.)

And would it have killed you - or amounted to censorship - if you had removed the article? Censorship, mind you, is when someone else, someone with power over you (e.g. the government) coerces you into removing information, or not putting it out there in the first place.

On the other hand, if YOU decide to remove a post many years after the fact, or edit it to e.g. not include names anymore, that isn't censorship: that is just being nice and recognizing that, as you say, people move on in life and that old matters should be let rest at some point.

Now, telling search engines to stay away from this particular post is a good start, too, don't get me wrong. But I'm really not sure I understand why you're not taking it down, or at least removing the guy's name. I know I would; not because I'm obliged to do so, but out of niceness, and because I think people deserve a second chance.

_ALLEGED_ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321846)

Good lord. Can't you leave your politics out of the news story? There's ample ambiguity about whether that picture is of and sent by Congressman Weiner.

The internet isn't private (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321872)

Too bad people need to learn the hard way. People are like that.

Re:The internet isn't private (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322050)

This why I feel the story is messed up. This isn't a privacy issues as much as a fame issue. It is not something new.

Ride the wave (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321882)

You can't change the past. Go with the flow.

her own fault for perving (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36321920)

This tells us she's a pervert for clicking on the photos to see that guy nude. Her own fault.

Injudicious behaviour on Wiener's part (1)

amanicdroid (1822516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321976)

If I were her I would seek *ahem* penal damages.

Welcome to the land of Duh. (1)

log0n (18224) | more than 3 years ago | (#36321982)

If you put info out there.. it will be out there.

This is a good example of people not respecting XYZ because it didn't happen to them, right up until it happened to them. I wish people were smarter.. figure out that whole *actions have consequences* thing.

Re:Welcome to the land of Duh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36322242)

She didn't put info out there. A right-wing mob decided it was appropriate to dig up and publish anything and everything related to her because, as a society, we apparently no longer have any sense of shame or respect for privacy.

The Interwebs...what happens here stays here (1)

hilldog (656513) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322002)

For ever and ever and ever and..

Which is why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36322064)

You should never put any of that information up on the Internet to begin with. Sadly, some of that information gets put onto the Internet for you by the government if you ever should happen to buy property etc (somehow buying property means that everyone should know who you are and how to spam you - don't quite understand why).

Bzzzzt Wrong Answer (1)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322078)

But the fact is, 'until a site's Webmaster removes the offending content, it will remain accessible via search engines like Google,' says blogger Dan Tynan."

Wrong.. once it is on the interwebs, it lives forever in caches and history scrapers etc..etc.. once you go digital..you dont go back.

Solution? (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322172)

So the solution is to go mainstream too and give a few interviews denying everything in the hope those interviews will get the upper hand over the gossip?
It might. Future will tell.

how about a deluge of fake info (1)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 3 years ago | (#36322182)

Since I can get addons for firefox which query google randomly every second, why can't ms cordova get an app that sends out tons and tons and tons of spam with her name, permutations of her name, etc etc....quickly making it impossible to find the real info

Oblig. Butthead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36322232)

"Huh huh! He said 'anatomy'!"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...