Sunday’s Activities Include: no horse due to cold, track meet

The horse was canceled due to cold, so both kids went to the Team Verge track meet. T. did the 400 m, 800m and 1 mile. A. did the 40 m and the 100 m. We all had a nice time. A. also did javelin. They really do a nice job with the meets; everyone gets ribbons for every event with their time listed on it (and their place, if they placed, I assume).

T. skipped breakfast because he didn’t have time to digest before running (a reasonable decision, but did lead to some grumpiness and a lot of questions on the way there). We stopped at a Dunkin’ as soon as were out to make sure the trip home did not have even more hangry. We had lunch at home (those of us who had not already had lunch at DD, anyway).

Reasonable definitions of breach

When I type “define breach of contract” (not in quotes) into google, here is the first part of the first thing I get: “An act of breaking the terms set out in a contract”. So that would be _a_ _reasonable_ definition of the term “breach”. Let’s remember that for JUST a moment.

http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-data-breach-reactions-executives-response-twitter-2018-3

According to this reporting, Facebook’s Chief Security Officer, Stamos (there’s a joke here, but I’m not going to try to find it), tweeted that what happened was a “violation” of the “agreement”, but not a “breach” under any reasonable definition of the term.

Never mind the politics. Never mind what should or should not be done. FB apparently has an executive level person who thinks that the _generally understood meaning of breach under contract law_ is not a “reasonable” definition of the term “breach”, in a situation where an agreement between FB and 3rd parties has been violated.

Look, I’m autistic. I’ve got kids on the spectrum. I can get _very_ locked into what a word means in a particular context. But this is ... ridiculous. Corporate executives who might have to deal with contract violations should probably understand what “breach” means. I mean, I’ve met physics people who will argue about the technical definition of the word “work”. But absolutely no one takes them seriously at all. Same deal here. Don’t Be That Guy.

Also, I have about had it with people whose primary expertise is technological / technical / computer / wtfery who cannot be bothered to pay any attention to the law. The law is actually relevant. It is. Seriously.

NYT coverage : https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/us/cambridge-analytica-facebook-privacy-data.html

This contains some of the tweets. The tweet about reasonable and breach does not specify ‘data breach’, it only says ‘breach”. Other tweets specify ‘data breach’. But even ‘data breach’ could be construed here to mean, a breach of contractual agreements with respect to the allowable and prohibited uses of data covered by the agreement.