backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Sep 28 at 2:45 AM

Facebook subpoenaed over allegations of solicitation of minors on the Facebook site

Facebook, the popular social networking site for teens and college students, was subpoenaed by New York Attorney Andrew Cuomo on Monday. Facebook is the target of an investigation into allegations of solicitation of minors by sexual predators on the site.

This subpoena comes after Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced they were leading investigations into the site. Cuomo issued subpoenas to Facebook seeking complaints received by Facebook on solicitations of underage users and inappropriate content on the site.

USA Today quotes Cuomo as saying, “My office is concerned that Facebook's promise of a safe website is not consistent with its performance in policing its site and responding to complaints, Parents have a right to know what their children will encounter on a website that is aggressively marketed as safe."

Cuomo told USA Today that over the last month undercover agents posing as underage users were solicited by adult sexual predators and users were easily able access adult videos and images. Facebooks biggest rival, MySpace, had similar problems with sexual predators using the website to solicit minors. Cuomo says investigators contacted Facebook posing as parents of underage children, who were solicited by adults on the site.

The complaints were often ignored, but in a few instances Facebook did remove inappropriate content. This isn't the first time Facebook has faced legal troubles, Facebook was in court to defend itself against allegations that Facebook founders stole the idea for the site from a previous venture they were involved in.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

stupid
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 6:47:05 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe parents should get more involved in what their children are doing on the internet, instead of expecting everyone else to "babysit" their kids.

Instead of spending their time going after facebook, perhaps they should purchase a firewall program and spend their time blocking websites that they dont want their kids going on.




RE: stupid
By MADAOO7 on 9/26/2007 6:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
amen


RE: stupid
By SavagePotato on 9/26/2007 6:57:49 PM , Rating: 3
Firewall software blows.

Actually my DGL-4300 has web filtering controls built right into it. As do many routers. It's easy to use and effective.

Problem is the kids know more than they do so that kills the whole concept.


RE: stupid
By Adonlude on 9/26/2007 7:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Problem is the kids know more than they do so that kills the whole concept.


This is true for now with the pre-internet/computer generation parenting the internet/computer generations. I expect this to change though. When I have kids I doubt they will be to advanced for me seeing as I am from the internet generation,


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 7:55:37 PM , Rating: 3
LOL, you're probably in for a surprise. You see, when you're younger than thirty, you don't seem to realize that as you get older your brain and body both slow down. And at the same time if you have kids, their brains are going like crazy. In addition, they are exposed to even more technology at a young age then their parents. So it's pretty easy to see why the parents get passed on by.

I know you don't believe me, but trust me, it happens.

My 4-year old son was quite proficient at searching for train pictures using google images, saving them, printing them, etc. It was easy for him. And him and his sister (now 5) can figure out how to work their computer games much faster than my wife and I - and I'm a total computer geek.


RE: stupid
By cochy on 9/27/2007 12:48:01 AM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry your brain has slowed down =)


RE: stupid
By theapparition on 9/27/2007 11:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
.......and that your a computer geek :P


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 6:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
You guys are hilarious ... ha ha! :o)


RE: stupid
By Quiescent on 9/26/2007 6:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Except I feel sorry for those who do not need protection because they are not ignorant enough to fall for any traps. I am glad my parents never did anything about whatever website I go to. But then again, it would be more like an invasion of my space since they never bought any computers I've built or owned.

The sad thing is that perhaps 95% of everyone my age or my age at the time I've known them really did need some protection by their parents because they didn't have much common sense and they didn't learn from other people's mistakes.

I really think that it would be costly, money wise, to patrol a site that millions of people are signed up to and check for this kind of stuff. What really needs to happen is that their parents need to talk to them about how much information they shouldn't give out. No sport team you are with. Nobody that isn't in your network. Restrict some from networks that are for the entire city they live in. No full last name. I put mine up as just the first letter of my last name. No address, no zip code. Nothing. Just the shear basics. Do not even tell your school's name. I could have sworn this was common sense to know these things to not talk about, but I guess not everybody knows.


RE: stupid
By mindless1 on 9/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: stupid
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 7:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe you should stop trying to blame parents for what a 3rd party is doing. Everyone else really would have to babysit, because a teen or college student's access to the internet is not limited only to the computer in mom & dad's living room, you can get online practically anywhere so unless you are suggesting the child be chained up in the basement, your idea about parental monitoring being enough is exactly how the problem occurs.


For one, no one is making anyone go on that website. It is a personal choice to subscribe to it. Secondly, a college student should not need babysitting at all - if they do, perhaps the parents didn't do their job somewhere along the lines. And I never said monitoring the internet at home was enough, its just a start.

quote:
As for blocking the internet, I imagine you are feeling it is ok for parents to censor but is it really any different than a whole country banning all it's citizens from certain 'sites, and further, it is really enough to just ban facebook as if kids looking for social interaction online wouldn't just find 'site after 'site to do so?


Im not referring to blocking the entire internet, but it is feasible to block certain websites that provide content that you do not feel is ok for your childrent to be using/viewing. Thats part of being a parent - deciding what is best for your child, and determining what they can and cannot do. Your "censoring all of the country" statement is ridiculous. The government is not responsibile for babysitting or raising your child. It is the parents right and duty to censor what they believe is or is not appropriate for their child. Thats basic parenting. Its refers to internet, television, books, magazines, etc - as well as many other things like activies, who your child hangs out with, etc. And you are right, just blocking facebook wouldnt be enough - but parenting is not about taking preventative measures today, and then turning your back for the remainder of time. It is a constant uphill battle.

quote:
Trying to simply shut out the world from your child will just encourage them to be more secretive.


I dont believe that monitoring your childs internet activity or extra curricular activities are shutting your child out from the world. There are times during their childhood when they need to be shut out and monitored from many things, and as they get older and wiser, they start to get more freedoms as the parents feel more comfortable with the childs ability to make the correct decisions. Im not an expert as to what all to block out, and when a certain amount is too much, so please dont take me the wrong way.

But monitoring your childs internet activity, especially with the amount of crazies out there, is a step in the right direction, and not a bad idea.


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 7:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
As I said in another post, you are being very naive.

1. What parent is going to be able to monitor their teen son/daughter 100% of the time? None.

2. What teen is going to listen to their parent 100% of the time? None.

The level of parenting that you describe is impossible and unrealistic.

You say it is not the government's responsibility to babysit children, and I agree. But it absolutely is the government's responsibility to protect children from sexual predators. And that is what they are doing.

Why do you feel that Facebook somehow gets a free pass because of parental responsibility? If Facebook is doing something to facilitate crime, or not enough to try to prevent it, then it is very reasonable for AG's to look into it.

And on the other side of the coin, what possibly could come out of it that is negative? Unless you are a sexual predator that gets shut out of Facebook, it seems like all possible outcomes are positive ones.


RE: stupid
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 7:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
I am absolutely not defending facebook at all - please read my posts on another thread below.

I think they need better verification processes - for example needing a credit card to verify who you really are, and keep that on record. And if you do not have a credit card or are under 18, then need a parent or legal guardians consent to be on the site. The parents may not be able to monitor everything you are doing, but at least they will be aware that this is something you go on and can advise you about its dangers.

I also agree about the govt's responsibility to protect us, and that is what they are doing.

Im not saying every parent out there does a bad job, or that they can monitor 100% of the time. But lets face it, there are parents out there who are not responsible and do expect other people to be responsible for their kids. Lets also face the fact that alot of parents have the ability to do more, and dont.

Its a very hard and touchy subject, with no definitive answers, but im just voicing an opinion here. Im not saying anyone else is wrong, and there is no way to prove that im wrong or right.


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 8:00:32 PM , Rating: 3
I agree, I would like to see a better age verification system in place, because nearly every site that has a system for that is really just the honor system. And obviously predators have no problem lying.

The issue seems to be that web sites don't want to put in "real" age verification systems because it will invariably reduce their traffic. So for them the calculus is to create the perception of security without actually inconveniencing users enough to discourage them from using the site. And that is shady, if you ask me. But all the sites do that.


RE: stupid
By bhieb on 9/26/2007 9:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
Wholly crap I agree 100% with Tom (must be getting late)! However...
quote:
But it absolutely is the government's responsibility to protect

WHAT not 24 hours ago you were arguing that the cops had no right arresting some chick with a (albeit a fairly poor) mock bomb at the airport. Make up your mind are they hear to protect us or not?

- by the way Just kidding no need to open that can again


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 10:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
I never said the police didn't have a duty to find out what the situation was with her "bomb art." My criticism was their reaction after they found out they wrongly thought it was a bomb...they when into CYA mode.


RE: stupid
By IGoodwin on 9/26/2007 7:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
mdogs, your posts on other topics, specifically being in your twenties and the ability to aford designer jeans, leads me to believe that you don't actually have children, and, if you do they are not close to using the internet.

There is never a simple answer when it comes to children and good parents have to perform a fine juggling act with allowing a teen to grow into an adult by gradually reducing control, and the other extreem of instigating 'big brother' tactics to keep them from harm.

Children are very adept at finding limits and, as soon as you set one, they find the next one to challenge.

It will be interesting to see if your opinion changes when you do have teenagers. I have yet to get even close to finding the right answer to some problems; although, I used to think there were simplere answers.


RE: stupid
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 7:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, I am in my 20's (27), and do not have childrens. What i choose to purchse with my money, and how much money i make would have nothing to do with being a responsible parent and raising children - if i was a parent.

But on the flip side, I do have a younger sister, 3 goddaughers/nieces ranging in age from 3-11, and work for a non profit childrens hospital where protecting young children is one of our top priorities.

A child under the age of 18 is the responsibility of their parent(s), as well as the responsibility of the city schools during the day. When a child turns 18, they are liable for their own actions, but it is still the unconditional love that parents show which helps guide the young adult even further.

With that being said, it is up to the parent to raise the child and teach them the rights and wrongs of the world, and provide guidance into making the right decisions. I agree that you cannot turn the child into a hermit, and no one is saying that. No one says you have to block the entire internet from your children either. But filtering these types of websites is definately a step in the right direction until the parent fully believes the child knows what is right and wrong when posed with a certain circumstance.

There are numerous circumstances out there of child endangerment with the increasing amount of crazy people out there. But none the less, parents do need to step up and take responsibility for not only their actions, but the actions of their child. They are the leaders of the household, the providers and teachers, and the role models and inspirations of children.

I firmly believe that placing blame on a website for not protecting your child when you weren't looking is a definate cop out of responsibility.


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 7:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
You're oversimplifying the situation and ignoring the realities. Please read my post below.


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 7:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe parents should get more involved in what their children are doing on the internet, instead of expecting everyone else to "babysit" their kids.

Typical knee-jerk reaction. But unfortunately you're wrong about that.

Yes, parents need to educate their children about the dangers of the Internet, and many/most do. That is the first line of defense. But in addition, sites like Facebook also have to live up to their responsibility to provide a relatively safe environment if they are going to cater to children. Parents simply cannot be watching their teen-age children 100% of the time. And web sites cannot be allowed to facilitate crime.

Think about when you were a kid. Did you always obey your parents all the time? Were your parents in the room with you all the time to make sure you didn't get into trouble? Did you ever use a computer when they were not around? Somehow I think I know the answers to these questions, even if your parents were the best parents ever.


RE: stupid
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 7:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
I do agree with you that these sites do need to do more to protect the people that they allow on the sites. Im with you 100% on that.

But it is still the parents responsibility to know what their child is doing, and prevent from them doing things that are not safe.

quote:
Think about when you were a kid. Did you always obey your parents all the time? Were your parents in the room with you all the time to make sure you didn't get into trouble? Did you ever use a computer when they were not around? Somehow I think I know the answers to these questions, even if your parents were the best parents ever.


You're right, i was a typical child who got in trouble once in a while. Unfortunately, we didnt have a computer until I was already in high school, and the internet was just started, so these types of sites were around yet. I'm not claiming to be an angel at all, but I feel that my parents did a very good job of teaching me to make the right decisions, and preventing me from getting into situations that were potentially dangerous.


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 7:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But it is still the parents responsibility to know what their child is doing, and prevent from them doing things that are not safe.

Yes, of course, and it is the government's responsibility to reduce or eliminate the risk of crime by catching and jailing sexual predators.

And, if Facebook claims to be a "safe" site for children, then their responsibility is to live up to that claim.


RE: stupid
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 7:53:39 PM , Rating: 1
I agree. I think people were taking my posts personally and offensive, when they werent meant to be. But I work with children in a hospital all day, and deal with parents who just dont give a shit what their kids do.

It really makes me sick. These are the types of people who blame websites, and other peoples parents for not doing the job that they were supposed to.


RE: stupid
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 8:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It really makes me sick. These are the types of people who blame websites, and other peoples parents for not doing the job that they were supposed to.

That's not too far off from blaming a victim for a crime committed against them. For example, if a child was molested by someone who met them on Facebook, clearly it would be the fault of the predator, right?


RE: stupid
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 9:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
No no, i think you interpreted what i said incorrectly - most likely due to the fact that i used the word "they" at the end.

What i meant was that there are parents who dont care what their children do, and dont pay attention. Then when something happens to the child, the parents blames someone or something else for the situation that happened - which could have been eliminated had they started paying attention.


RE: stupid
By mindless1 on 9/26/2007 11:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, then the parents may be guilty of negligence, but at the same time that's not making it their fault what some 3rd party predator does either.

A parent does not always know what their child is doing 24/7. Parents work, maintain the home, even sleep once a week or so. When a child is going to school there is 1 teacher for a couple dozen students give or take, that teacher can't have a constant high level of supervision.

The problem with predators is they put forthought into targeting someone. The parents and teachers are guarding against unknown dangers. You can't string up and interrogate everyone that comes within 50 yards of a child.

It may well be that some children are harmed due to parental neglect, but there is a more comprehensive solution needed that better protects everyone regardless of this variable.


RE: stupid
By PuravSanghani on 9/26/2007 8:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the fact that parents need to get more involved in their kids' lives especially these days with new mediums of communication that have been and will be introduced to society. I don't quite remember what my parents told me or what types of examples they set to prepare me to avoid situations like some young teens are going through but I do know that parents have a very critical influence on how their children turn out.

But during childhood, parents are not the only influence. If you ask me, the way a kid turns out is random at best. The parents can try all they want to mold their children into street-wise adults but their environment outside of the home plays just as large of a role. But let's not get into all the psychology of all that.

Facebook is a social networking site. The purpose of Facebook, Myspace, Friendster, etc. is to expose member information (as much as the member chooses to expose) to whoever they want to expose to. Now as far as I know Facebook provides controls to limit who can see detailed information about a member and Friendster does also. I am not too sure about MySpace and will probably never use it but hopefully MySpace also implements such controls.

Where these social networking sites can go wrong is expanding their networks to allow a wider age range to join. I know for a fact that Facebook used to be a college-crowd-only social networking site as it required a school email address to join.

However these sites are also businesses who make money off ads. Who does the most shopping, or clicking on ads? I'm assuming teens. If Facebook wants to make more money, as all business do, they will expand their membership offers to this market.

What should the legal system do to help reduce the problems parents complain of? Re-limit the membership to people 18 years of age and over. How should they implement this? That's for Facebook's R&D to think up.


RE: stupid
By clovell on 9/27/2007 12:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Parenting isn't easy - never has been and never will be. People should quit whining and do their damned jobs.


well
By logaldinho on 9/27/2007 12:54:29 AM , Rating: 2
I understand facebook wants as many users as possible when they decide to sell out to another company (i cant remember if they already have or not) but would it just make more sense to return to only accepting colleges and employers? at least then you would be dealing with 95-99% adults and would entirely avoid the issue of minors.

i like facebook but now its reminding me of myspace and old school aol, (asl?)

as far as the parental issue, yes i agree that its impossible to expect parents to have 100% control over their children and in that point i agree with some of these posters, however i do believe that it is up to the responsible parent to instill upon their children the values of not meeting strangers. i am in my mid to late twenties and grew up during the aol boom so the issues of social networking are nothing new to me. i also was taught at an early age not to accept candy from strangers or get into a car with strangers even if they claimed to know my parents. some of this were taught by my schools but most of this knowledge happened to be gained from my responsible parents.

to say that kids rebel and do what they want as an excuse in this case of it supposedly not being bad parenting is silly. comparing sneaking out to go to brad or julies party to meeting up with some stranger who is decades older to have sex with them because they "get me" and im the only one that "understands them" is not only laughable but irresponsible.

ive seen a couple episodes of that dateline how to catch a predator show and the recurring theme i see is that the "minor" is fully aware of the intent of the animals that are caught. when you hear them read off the excerpts from the sting operation there are plenty of instances where sex is most evident and in turn were that to be a real minor show a clear lack of values from said household. -- after all we arent reading about predators PRETENDING to be minors to assault other minors, we are instead reading about adults using their accounts to assault minors.




RE: well
By mindless1 on 9/27/2007 2:53:59 AM , Rating: 3
As much as I hate to concede it, in some cases today's minors are sexually and emotionally mature beyond the level of our ancestor's 18 year olds, and there ought to be a comprehensive tests to determine adulthood, instead of an arbitrary 18 year old line in the sand.

IOW, if a 16 year old looks 20, acts 20, has the same urges and emotional state as some 20 year olds, then a more comprehensive analysis than just what a pre-18 year old was like back when legislators were 18, is in order. On the other hand, if we then determined that this 18 year old emotional state is still not enough, then the age of (emotional, psychological adulthood) consent should be raise above 18 years old.

Personally, I think the legal limit should be lower than 18. Our youth mature faster than they used to, and at a younger age want freedoms formerly reserved for older people. They commit sex acts, crimes, and want more freedoms formerly reserved for older people, and so should they then correspondingly have more responsibilities if they want that burden. Fortunately I have some luxury in stating this because any 16 to 20 year old would be far too young for me to consider romantically. I have no interest sexually in anyone under 18, but at the same time, I recognize that these people have sexually matured a few years sooner than their grand parents did, and as such, it might be reasonable for them to be making sexually oriented decisions a few years younger than their grandparents did too.

Naturally, this will offend the parent of anyone near this age, because (in America in particular) we take a godlike stance to repress sexuallity. HOlding off on having children is a good thing when it promotes studies towards advanced skills that benefit society and yield a livable income, but on the other hand when we only discourage those who are brightest and most responsible from propigating, the inevitable result is the world is populated more requently by those who DON'T subscribe to these ideals, and ultimately mankind is worse off than if those with responsible nature had just ignored their parents and propigated when mature as nature intended.

What does this have to do with predators? Nothing, let them stand upright and obey the laws or sit in prison.


RE: well
By rdeegvainl on 9/27/2007 5:06:27 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree, (with that maturing faster deal) but would like to know of any sources you have to support your point.


RE: well
By mindless1 on 9/28/2007 2:39:02 AM , Rating: 2
You're kidding, right? Some things don't need a defense, do your own Google search (it's fact).


RE: well
By Dactyl on 9/27/2007 5:37:51 AM , Rating: 2
You're wrong about youth maturing faster today.

You're right that kids are pretty mature at 16.

But in our grandparents' generation, 16 was marrying age. People that age weren't just seen as mature enough to have sex, they were mature enough to drink, buy guns, buy a house, and get married. (I know 16-year-olds can get married today, but it's often frowned upon.)

We have this fiction today that it's "normal" for kids to be chaste at 19, but that doesn't square with thousands of years of human history.


RE: well
By mindless1 on 9/28/2007 2:45:25 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, it's scientific fact that the average age of puberty is younger, as is the age of accepting responsibility through schooling, studying towards one's future.

Just because 16 was marrying age doesn't change anything, children today do emotionally and physically mature earlier than their ancestors did. It means your idea about the significance of prior generations marrying at 16, would mean today the marrying age would be even younger. Personally I dont think the marrying age should be younger than 16, but we do have two opposing forces at play, nature vs the fallacy of oversight by elders that are merely human, imperfect and subjective in judgement.

What crack have you been smoking that you think it's normal for (kids?) to be chaste at 19? Pull your head out from under whatever rock it's under, only kids that consider themselves lepers or who have been severely socially stunted (abused) will not have sought, and normally had sex long before 19. Will they admit it? Probably not in today's repressed society. We're so backwards about sex that often parents seem to think that if their child has sex, it is an excuse to cut them off without the respect and rewards of actual responsibly beyond this ethical disagreement.


<no subject>
By Scabies on 9/26/2007 6:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Parents have a right to know what their children will encounter on a website that is aggressively marketed as safe.


Mommy and Daddy Jones:
Your daughter uses facebook.
Rapists are on facebook.
Sincerely, Facebook.

Honestly, it is no one's responsibility to inform the parent that they suck at raising children. It is the parent's responsibility to keep their child's activities in check, both online and on the weekend. Neither Facebook nor any part of the government has responsibility for what kids with too much free time and too much freedom do.




RE: <no subject>
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 6:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you - hence my other post on this topic.

However, what they could do to verify who people are is to use some of the security measures of paypal - by verifying a credit card.

That way, minors without credit cards need parental consent to register on the site. Just an idea on something they could do to help.


RE: <no subject>
By Quiescent on 9/26/2007 7:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
They already have some sort of flimsy verification. If you do not have a network, you are listed as having "No Network". Otherwise if you have a friend in say your school, you make friends with them, you're verified for your network. However, afterwards you can join other networks.

I still think there should be other verification processes. Not everyone has a verified paypal account and not everyone's going to have a bank account. I know I don't, yet.


RE: <no subject>
By mdogs444 on 9/26/2007 7:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
I was referring to a method similar to paypals verification method.


I have not found...
By drunkenmastermind on 9/26/2007 6:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
any adult content on facebook, maybe I have not looked? I find the site very wholesome, with many of the users presenting themselves as who they are.




RE: I have not found...
By James Holden on 9/26/2007 6:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
If by "adult content" you mean nude co-eds finishing rails off each other during Carnivale, then you should add my moronic friends to your Facebook.


hold on
By bryanW1995 on 9/26/2007 7:17:59 PM , Rating: 2
so let me get this straight. the new york attorney general's office launched an investigation and found that their phoney sexual predators were not all kicked out of the site. where is the evidence for actual sexual predators? isn't that the point of their "safe" message? it's not "we'll kick out any new york state detectives who try to trick us into letting be sexual predators". I'm so glad I don't live in NY.




RE: hold on
By TomZ on 9/26/2007 7:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even RTFA?

undercover agents posing as underage users were solicited by adult sexual predators and users were easily able access adult videos and images


RE: hold on
By SavagePotato on 9/26/07, Rating: 0
By jamesvtm on 9/27/2007 7:45:55 AM , Rating: 2
My 12 year old uses school issued ibook finds neighbors open wifi and proxy's around whatever firewall restrictions the school has imposed.

If he didn't have the ibook, he could sneak my laptop out and boot through knopix/Ubuntu linux cd and surf away on neighbors open wifi. (ok i could disable cd boot in bios and pw protect bios access.)

He showed me how he used proxy to circumvent router restrictions that I had set up at home.

I'm 49 and know more than him when it comes IT.




"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki