The framework internationally is different. Within free countries, there's a culture of expectations that certain things will be unacceptable, or will be resisted by self-respecting citizens. That culture is based in a system that guards fundamental liberties, and people are able to rely on it to do so, though for private firms the limits aren't so definitive as they are for the government.
Internationally, the limits are no longer so definitive, and that's because even though governments will sign onto instruments like the UDHR, those rights are not actually fundamental, even if we call them that. Fundamental rights have an undeniable priority within countries where they have been claimed in the founding act. On that foundation, judges are always obliged to assess fundamental rights in light of the unarguable fact that their priority over the government was part of the original creation of the whole system. There's no founding act in the international arena that sets the priority of people over the governments of the world, so rights are actually at the indulgence of governments, and governments can always assert their state interests are so important that they warrant impinging on fundamental liberties.We just saw an example of this with the Snowden disclosures. We've been through a long period where we couldn't get our government to actually do much for us, or conversely to not invade our liberties -- because the claims that the government was snooping pervasively were kept marginal. But once documentation moved those considerations, we suddenly began seeing the appeals work again: that's not the kind of country we are, what we set up for ourselves. And while it's still in a bit of denial, we are seeing a gradual grudging retracting -- again, because the basis in fundamental liberties is unarguably related to how we set the government up in the founding act(s).
The checks and balances don't work the same internationally, and that circumstance can be exploited (and is, all the times, these days).
Seth
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Important business users, with Yahoo accounts? Is that a joke?
Just as a reference point:
- I just logged into my long-unused, and un-publicized yahoo email account - and the only thing there is Spam
- the lion's share of mail that comes from yahoo, to my normal account, is spam
- unfortunately, a good number of people on the email lists that I run seem to have Yahoo mail accounts - and a good amount of the mail that comes from those accounts is... you guessed it... spam - because yahoo email accounts seem to be vulnerable to cracking and exploitation
So, just who is it that Yahoo is protecting here?
Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
The standard procedure in many companies is business scoped, so they identify important business users and the business returns/damages. Most important users are not IT experts, and use email for personal exchange. Yahoo has signed an agreement with users to protect its information system, so all seem to follow that, and all users are free to stop using services or not.
AB
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I thought that standard operating procedure in the IT industry
was: if you roll something out and it causes serious breakage to
some of your users, you roll it back as soon as possible.
Why hasn't Yahoo rolled back its 'reject' policy by now?
Regards
Brian
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra