Slashdot Mirror

An rideshare consisting of a driver and a passenger counts as an HOV vehicle, and can use special lanes which are usually less congested during rush hour. In Boston, there are serious traffic jams entering and exiting the city during rush hour, every business day.

I haven't heard anecdotally of rideshares used in this fashion though.

I don't know, but the summary mis-characterizes what Okin wrote ("[dog and cat] feces would be equivalent to the total garbage produced by 6.63 million Americans, or approximately the population of Massachusetts"), which is in turn wrong. According to the Massachusetts government, household waste was about 3.5 million tons in 2006 (about 2.98 pounds per capita, versus 4.4 pounds per capita in the EPA numbers for 2013).

However, that household waste number is a pretty small fraction of the total solid garbage that gets generated. MA's 2006 numbers show 3.49 MT of household waste, 5.66 MT of business waste, and 4.65 MT of construction and demolition debris. The household waste number is only 25(-ish)% of the total.

On top of that, the 4.4 pounds per capita per day number is before recycling, composting, and incineration for energy generation are considered, which combined account for almost half (47%) of the total mass that was generated (according to the EPA report that Okin cited).

I grew up in and still live in a state with a deposit system (and I remember the days before we had deposits, when you would just bring crushed aluminum cans to the recycling center). Here's how it works in Massachusetts. There are 166 registered recycling centers listed, but close to 100 of those are liquor stores or grocery stores and many of the rest are municipal recycling centers. More than half of recycling centers closed between 1995 and 2011, prompting a 1 cent per container increase in the handling fee in 2013, which of course means more costs passed on to consumers on top of the deposit. And of the recycling centers that are left, most are concentrated in the most densely populated areas. There is exactly one recycling center within a 10 mile radius of where I live, in the biggest city in the area of course (and not in a nice area). 20 miles adds one or two more. After that, you're getting into dense urban areas that are best to avoid. And even if you can get to one, here's the kicker:

Unlike retail stores - which are required to redeem the same brands, types and sizes of containers they sell or recently sold for full deposit value - redemption centers can choose which containers they will accept and deduct processing fees from refunds.

They don't have to give you the full deposit back and they aren't required to take what you bring. Even grocery stores only have to accept what they sell, but you're lucky if you can get the machines to work. And forget about returning beer bottles to grocery stores, limited liquor licenses mean that most grocery stores can't sell any beer and therefore won't accept most of the containers in their machines.

And unclaimed deposits? They go into the general fund. The attempt to expand the bill's scope to include water bottles would have directed unclaimed deposits to unspecified "environmental programs," which isn't really much of an improvement once you get politicians involved. If they actually put that money toward making recycling bins as common as trash cans (like they do in civilized countries), they would probably see a big increase in the recycling rate for non-deposit containers. But then that would weaken the case for deposits. So instead, retailers, distributors, and consumers have to foot the bill for a separate inefficient system to recycle one type of container while most communities have recycling programs of their own that could do the same thing with less overhead because they already have the systems in place and would only need a marginal increase in upstream capacity. And we get phony studies that try to seriously claim that increased distribution costs don't increase prices to the consumer with a methodology that would be laughed out of an elementary school science fair. Anything to keep the cash flowing to Beacon Street...

Here's my cite, listing salaried employees exempt from MA overtime requirements. Exempt employees include a "professional person... earning more than eighty dollars per week," which seems to cover the position in the summary. And, no mention whatever of the 48 hour figure you give in the MA Official Website of the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development Overtime FAQ.

Where's your support for your claim?

Ummm, I don't know when this happened but that is still destruction of evidence. From this page:

Spoliation has been defined as the willful destruction of evidence or the failure to preserve potential evidence for another's use in pending or future litigation. Trigon Ins. Co. v. U.S., 204 F.R.D. 277 (E.D.Va., 2001). Two recent SJC decisions, Fletcher v. Dorchester Mutual Insurance Company, 437 Mass. 544 (2002), and Keene v. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 439 Mass. 223 (2003), flesh out what is required of parties to civil litigation as to document retention. Both cases emphasize that sanctions (in extreme cases, up to and including default or dismissal) may be appropriate for the spoliation of evidence, whether negligent or intentional, even where the loss of potential evidence occurs before an action has been commenced, if a litigant or its expert knows or reasonably should know that the evidence might be relevant to a possible action.

(emphasis added)

Yep. And as for the "three would power the city of Boston" remember that Boston is TINY. In a list of the top 150 largest cities in the US, Boston comes in at "too small to be on the list." It's barely half the size of the 150th largest city. So that's hardly impressive. (Not that you'd be able to tell by how important Boston thinks it is, but it's one of our nation's smallest "cities.")

Boston? 600MW? I think these MIT folks may be off by as much as a factor of 10 on the 'Boston' thing. If "The Greater Boston area, which includes the North Shore, represents about half of the state's electricity use." [and] 2012 Actual Peak Demand was 12,429MW then at 200MW apiece it would require ~32 of them not 3. That would make their claim true only for really small numbers of Boston.

Not trying to belittle the achievement of a 200MW fusion reactor. The most astounding figure of all is that no matter the size of the reactor, it would produce exactly 100% more electricity than fusion produces today.

In Section 11H, (1) (ii) of the bill in question:

The insurance may be held by the transportation network driver, the transportation network company, or some combination thereof.

Fission power is only expensive due to the excessive oversight imposed.

Can you imagine the horror show that would result from inadequate oversight? We insist on using for-profit companies to build our nuclear reactors - companies who make more money the more corners they cut. Companies whose management is not answerable to the people in any way. Companies that won't develop contingency plans because it's "too expensive", and without proper regulation there are no consequences.

We have a private company operating our water service here. They're awful. They have a stranglehold on the distribution infrastructure, so they can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want, legal or not. They cut corners and we had an 11-day boil order as a result. One of their managers was convicted of a crime and went to prison for tampering with water samples to make them appear cleaner than the water actually was. And that's just the stuff we know about. They probably get away with that kind of thing all the time; after all, it's only a crime if you get caught.

So, in short, private industry can't be trusted to build and operate the plants safely, and there would be Tea Party rioting in the streets if any of the plants were nationalized. These make nuclear power not viable in the USA. As far as environmental impact goes, the waste generated by producing solar panels doesn't require storage by the lowest bidder and isn't radioactive for thousands of years.

At will employment laws vary from State to State

yes well we're talking about Massachusetts, so no need to speculate on what might be the case in other states eh?

The professor may or not have a contract that negates this theory.

also, he may or may not have magical powers that allow him to set his enemies on fire. how about focusing on the facts we know?

Further, even with the "right to work" laws Companies can not stomp on a persons rights under the Law of the Land (US Constitution) without repercussion.

terminating an employee doesn't equate to "stomping on their rights". see below.

Can an employee be fired for no reason? , Archived from Boston Globe, 2005
"Although it seems almost impossible to believe, employers in Massachusetts, or in any other employee-at-will state, can fire any employee at any time for any reason — or even for no reason at all. An employer can terminate any employee, with or without notice."
http://www.mass.gov/courts/cas...

now are we done?

(a) TRANSFER AUTHORIZED .—(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may transfer to Federal and State agencies personal prop- erty of the Department of Defense, including small arms and ammunition, that the Secretary determines is

(emphasis mine)
If you're not a government agency... what are you doing with all that excess military equipment acquired via the 1033 program?

References: http://www.mass.gov/eopss/agen...
https://www.justnet.org/other/...
http://www.nps.gov/legal/laws/...

harge 'em with breaking and entering, assault and battery, and conspiracy to do those things. Guys, are you sure you're not with the government?

Massachusetts has a pretty strong Castle doctrine

I'm not saying you should shoot Police officers, lawfully executing a warrant. I'm just pointing out that these guys don't seem to want to be considered Police officers.

In the US, states have the primary responsibility for education.

That works out ok for states like Massachusetts who have a well educated population and liberal government; their schools are absolutely world-class.

http://www.mass.gov/governor/p...

The tax applies if your clients live in Massachusetts, regardless of where you live. If you're a Massachusetts programmer, you want to make sure your clients live out of state.
 
Of course, that assumes it's obeyed at all. Massachusetts also has a 'use tax" that says if you buy items out of state and use them in Massachusetts, you need to pay Massachusetts a tax on their use unless you paid a sales tax where you bought it. So, in theory, suppose you drive north to New Hampshire and buy a chair. You then put the chair in your Massachusetts home office. You now owe Massachusetts a tax to use your chair, so you write out a check for 6.25% of the cost of the chair and mail it to the Department of Revenue.
 
Compliance with the law is not widespread.
 

I remember hearing about this when it was first proposed, take a look at Sec. 7, Subsection AA below:
http://www.mass.gov/bb/h1/fy14h1/os_14/h7.htm

The language there extends the tax to basically any software-related service you could possibly render. I find it surprising how hostile Mass. legislature seems to be towards the software industry, given the presence of MIT et al. and the countless tech startups that come out of these institutions.

You're right, you do have to file an answer, I've obviously never been served, however... 5 seconds of research reveal that the summons / citation you are served will include... wait for this... instructions to file the "answer" you're referring to. So reading what you're served, assuming you can read, would give you enough direction to proceed.

I remain unimpressed, though you can try to fearmonger and obfuscate your industry all you want, the only reason for a lawyer I've found is to save time / not wanting to deal with something yourself.

There are those seemingly infinitely complex he said she said cases though (divorce), that process is so jacked up, a lawyer is required there, or many long nights of reading.

Here's my source, I'd imagine the process is similar in all 50 states: http://www.mass.gov/courts/admin/ji/rssect6.html , if it was for me I'd look for my states laws.

Yes, but there are laws in place to mitigate the impact of lead paint. I live in Massachusetts, where landlords are required to remove lead paint from a rental dwelling if the tenants have a child under age 6.

I have two things to say about this. One, it's a burdensome regulation that disinclines me to invest in rental properties in Massachusetts. Two, it probably works as a public-health measure.

Interesting. Perhaps a bar complaint is in order. I don't think it would realistically result in any consequences -- the Feds are just untouchable -- but maybe it would be a hassle for Ortiz. Anything to make her life difficult would be worth it.

http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/complaint.htm

In Massachusetts, it's the law. http://www.mass.gov/courts/jury/compensa.htm#INFORMATION%20FOR%20EMPLOYERS:%20RIGHTS%20AND%20OBLIGATIONS:

With all due respect, I believe you are referring to 'karmic retribution' rather than what karma means in Buddhism, in which I believe it has a negative connotation. I've always held the belief that Slashdot and others used the popular (sorry, incorrect) meaning of the term karma.

Samsara is the cycle of reincarnation that keeps us from Nirvana, a Buddhist's ultimate goal. Desires (I'm forgetting the term) weigh us down with karma, thus holding us in the cycle of samsara.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma#Buddhism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_(demon)
http://www.sutrasmantras.info/glossary.html

Therefore, I don't care is Slashdot gives me karma,but I would like people to notice the amendments (11-29, 11-30, 11-31) to Massachusetts MGL's last summer regarding the wiretap law, restraining orders, and having the RMV follow rulings from MA courts of law:
http://www.mass.gov/ago/government-resources/initiatives-and-other-ballot-questions/current-petitions-filed.html

Here in Massachusetts, they cannot legally refuse to refund money for a defective item which they represented as a working product.

http://www.mass.gov/ago/consumer-resources/consumer-information/retail-rights/warrantiesrepairsreturn.html

Form 1 instructions page 13, line 33 instructions:

Taxpayers may use the following table to self-report a “safe-harbor” amount of use tax based on their Massachusetts adjusted gross income. A taxpayer may pay this amount in lieu of the actual amount of use tax that would otherwise be due with respect to such purchases. Individual taxpayers electing to report use tax under this method will not be assessed additional use tax on audit, even if the actual amount of use tax due would have been greater than the amount from the schedule.

The estimated liability applies only to purchases of any individual items each having a total sales price of less than $1,000. For each taxable item purchased at a sales price of $1,000 or greater, the actual use tax liability for each purchase must be added to the amount of the estimated liability from the table below. See TIR 04-26 for more information.

And I don't even live in Mass. New York has similar language in the instructions.

"Below is a list of initiative petitions filed with the Attorney General's Office and the Attorney General's certification decisions." See Initiative Petition 11-31. It got certified last summer, a good sign for the voters next time around.

I was tortured with a handcuff on only one arm by a Trooper trying to get me to resist. As I had stood in front of his cohort's police car moments before so he wouldn't drive away with the key to my bike, I had clearly started video recording him out of concern for being run down by him. He returned the key when Trooper B showed up, who sadly did not get to call the tow truck on my account. Did my phone make record of the entire encounter?

Glik has returned my call on a couple occasions and I celebrate his reasonable compensatory award with him in spirit. His ACLU lawyer also returned my call. I'm not a lawyer, but Wendy Kaminer's book about the ACLU "Worst Instincts" gets some validation from what I've observed. Perhaps it takes the added value of a lawyer to assist the ACLU--or does it take a lawyer to get them to serve their function? I'm not done with this episode although the statute of limitations has passed. You see, there are some outstanding matters to still be addressed.

Massachusetts is troubled place when you get a view on the behavior of Commonwealth employees from police, RMV, to judges. What relief we get is a market of cowardly attorneys and legislators that double-down on attempts to improve things. I live in a troubled place, indeed.

J. Toby Knudsen

Wind and solar alone will never meet our energy needs.

Wind alone can meet our energy needs: offshore wind potential in the U.S. is 900,000 MW, which is just about equivalent to our current generation capacity. Add solar, and efficiency improvements and a wind-solar world is in our reach.

It actually takes more energy to transport food than it does to grow it

Incorrect. While this is an article of faith among "localvores", in point of fact food production and processing uses more energy. According to the Worldwatch Institute, 17 percent of U.S. fossil fuel consumption goes to "the production and consumption of food: 6 percent for crop and livestock production, 6 percent for processing and packaging, and 5 percent for distribution and cooking." More information on energy use in food production here.

Buying locally produced food is not really meaningful (ecologically speaking), compared with the need to shift away from animal agriculture and processed foods and towards less-processed plant-based diets. (Which are also far more healthful.)

Phthalic anhydryde has got nothing to do with naphthalene, except that it was originally synthesised from it (it might still be, I don't know). Naphthalene sulphonate is closer, in that it isn't completely implausible that some of it could be transformed to naphthalene, but it is very unlikely that it is going to do that in any significant amount. They are not forms of naphthalene. They are both much more polar than naphthalene and thus easier for the body to excrete.

Using the first limit I found when searching for "water limit naphthalene", those 4000 pounds is able to pollute 13 billion liters of drinking water. If we take into account that it is not uniformly distributed acros Texas, that can easily be significant. And that is only one compound. I am not saying it is a problem, but saying "The main component by volume of fraccing fluid is water." as if that makes it harmless is not correct.

Looks like the Plaintiff's Lawyer don't care about a lot of things: "Sandwich Planning Board Member Julie C. Molloy Fined $3,000 for Improperly Representing Clients Before the Sandwich Zoning Board of Appeals"
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ethpressrelease&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Commission+Meetings+and+Publications&L2=Commission+Press+Releases&L3=2008+Ethics+Commission+Press+Releases&sid=Ieth&b=pressrelease&f=2008_molloy_0521&csid=Ieth

This ruling is in line with Comm v. Hyde. There is NOTHING new about this ruling, at least regards the recording issue. There is nothing wrong with OPENLY recording cops in MA or anyone else who are speaking in normal voice in public. By being in public, they are forfeiting their privacy. This is inline with 4th Amendment thinking.

For this reason I sponsored a voter Initiative Petition (three of them) for the MA 2012 ballot to amend MGL ch272 S99:

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagoterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Government&L2=Initiatives+%26+Other+Ballot+Questions&sid=Cago&b=terminalcontent&f=government_initiativepetitiontracking&csid=Cago

Chapter 272, section 99, subsection (D) , item 1 is modified by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (f):

g. for persons to record a public official in the course of performing his duties in a public place. For the purposes of this definition, a ‘public place’ is any venue where said public official does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I did contact a lawyer, as I mentioned (and you noted in the end) no one would take it because the money wasn't enough. Hence, my point (that you mostly agree with) that you don't get justice unless you pay up.

As for the argument, I did state clearly, numerous times, that there was no contract, and that the company could not produce one. I also stated that the company was lying about having one, and has never produced one. That is when the judge said he didn't care about who was lying, etc. In other words, it's impossible to make the argument of logic if the judge refuses to hear it.

Lastly, this was small-claims court. The intent (at least the intent we are told) is that we don't have to be lawyers, and the judge would handle the case as if we don't know this stuff. It's supposed to be less formal and a venue where "you don't have to be a lawyer". I quote from http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocaterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Consumer&L2=Consumer+Legal+Resources&sid=Eoca&b=terminalcontent&f=small_claims_court&csid=Eoca where it says "The atmosphere of Small Claims Court is informal, and the rules of the Court are simple. You can sue or be sued in this Court without being represented by a lawyer, because the more formal procedures characteristic of other courts are not required. Instead, you are allowed to present your own evidence and speak in layperson's terms." Hence, basic presentation of facts and logic should be followed, yet they weren't... for whatever reason. Again, that's my point... it's not about truth or justice... it's about money and being a lawyer. Logic need not apply.

This link to help people contact MA government officials took WAY to long to find from the state's website, mass.gov. I hope people get good use out of it.

Or, according to the Massachusetts driver's manual you could have your license suspended because you owe child support, haven't paid your Massachusetts income tax, or made a payment to the RMV [Registry of Motor Vehicles] that didn't go through (page 7 in the PDF) or if you're convicted of a drug offense or vandalism (operation of a motor vehicle not required -- page 10) or if you have unpaid parking tickets, were cited for an abandoned vehicle, or had an outstanding warrant (page 17.) How would those offenses indicate you're an unsafe driver?

That seems to be a lot of exceptions to cover with "Generally."

The average ID fraud in 2009 was for over $4000. They had open access to CC details for 8 months! Even the out of pocket expenses per fraud victim is over $600, so if there were 200 victims as a result of this company's lax security, the fine isn't even on par with the individual cost of those affected, which is absurd.

From TFA, it sounds like the only customer info on the compromised system was credit and debit card numbers. Cardholder liability for fraudulent use of their credit card is limited to $50 by U.S. law. Similarly, Massachusetts law limits cardholder liability for debit cards to $50.

So by your reasoning, the fine should have been 200*$50 = $10,000. (From reading TFA it sounds like there were a lot more than 200 victims. But I just wanted to make the point that there's a huge difference between credit card theft and identity theft).

(1) Secure user authentication protocols including:
(a) control of user IDs and other identifiers;
(b) a reasonably secure method of assigning and selecting passwords, or use of unique identifier technologies, such as biometrics or token devices;
(c) control of data security passwords to ensure that such passwords are kept in a location and/or format that does not compromise the security of the data they protect; (d) restricting access to active users and active user accounts only; and
(e) blocking access to user identification after multiple unsuccessful attempts to gain access or the limitation placed on access for the particular system;
(2) Secure access control measures that:

(a) restrict access to records and files containing personal information to those who need such information to perform their job duties; and
(b) assign unique identifications plus passwords, which are not vendor supplied default passwords, to each person with computer access, that are reasonably designed to maintain the integrity of the security of the access controls;

(3)Encryption of all transmitted records and files containing personal information that will travel across public networks, and encryption of all data containing personal information to be transmitted wirelessly.

(4) Reasonable monitoring of systems, for unauthorized use of or access to personal information;

(5) Encryption of all personal information stored on laptops or other portable devices;

(6) For files containing personal information on a system that is connected to the Internet, there must be reasonably up-to-date firewall protection and operating system security patches, reasonably designed to maintain the integrity of the personal information.

(7) Reasonably up-to-date versions of system security agent software which must include malware protection and reasonably up-to-date patches and virus definitions, or a version of such software that can still be supported with up-to-date patches and virus definitions, and is set to receive the most current security updates on a regular basis.

(8) Education and training of employees on the proper use of the computer security system and the importance of personal information security.

Sophomoric and stupid comment.

How so?

Tossing medical records around unsecured would certainly run afoul of HIPAA and some state laws too.
(Massachusetts 201-CMR-1700 linked but I'm sure other states have or are implementing similar legislation)

I don't even think you live in the USA, or just don't know the rules of the place you live in. If you're a resident you need you don't have to do jury duty. When you call the phone for the qualifying you an just choose the option that you're not a citizen. See statutory disqualifications Also USA allows for multiple citizenship, as it happens I got triple citizenship I was born in Mexico to a USA mother automatically I got 2 citizenships, and while living in Canada I married a Canadian girl and naturalized myself there so now I hold 3 citizenship. I actually have 3 passports which comes in handy when traveling certain parts of the world. The UK also allows for dual citizenship.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

I've thought of it myself (given I've had a green card here for a while), but it seems every second week someone is off for jury duty over here. Back in the UK, the only person I know who was called was my dad, once, in 45 years as an adult.

Personally, I'm not sure the whole 'WooHoo, I can now vote in the US' is worth it - which seems to be the only other *practical* difference between a GC-holder, and a citizen.

Plus, IIRC, the US insist that I'd have to give up my UK citizenship/passport (although, from various friends, I've heard that the UK just send your passport back to you with a "you appear to have misplaced your passport" note :)

So, whatever floats your boat, Linus, but I don't think it's for me.

Simon.

Our school district began using the debit-PIN system for school lunches last spring. It's very convenient, not having to insure there's cash in the house at 6:45am to fund two teenagers lunch needs.

Privacy concerns were raised by some of the tinfoil hat wearers, but aside from the convenience factor, a more important problem was addressed - theft of cash by those who handle the cash.

Yes, it seems that over the years a number of those lovable lunch ladies were dipping into the till to fund their retirement accounts. At least one is now spending her retirement as a guest of the Mass Department of Corrections resort at Shirley.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
...
(a) "Obstruct" includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.

This is incredibly draconian and equates wounding a cop with (say) getting out of your car in a traffic stop. You also need to memorize large swaths of Michigan law (at the least, including lawful searches and questioning) to know what a lawful command is (since cops can and will issue illegal instructions, obeying which will be substantially to your detriment). It's basically a felony to look crosswise at a cop in Michigan, and all they need is the cop's word. Compare New York's law:

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration. Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.

It's a misdemeanor, and you have to use physical violence, threats, a dangerous animal, or an independently unlawful act. This has seriously dampened my ardor for experiencing Michigan tourism. You can't drag me back to Mackinac Island!

In Ohio, looking crosswise at a cop is a misdemeanor.

(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

Shit, it looks like if you want to live on Lake Erie, New York is a veritable land of liberty. Who knew? Maybe you should move to Ontario (apparently they call it something else; I couldn't find the statute).

I felt like looking up one more state. In Massachusetts it looks like you can obstruct and lie to your heart's content (as long as you don't create a substantial risk of bodily injury) but it is illegal to belong to the Communist party (obviously a wildly unconstitutional statute). It looks like adultery will still net you three years as well...that's what you get for living in one of the thirteen colonies. Abortion will get you seven years (twenty-five if she dies). Have they read these laws lat

The law doesn't applied to stored email;

Are you so retarded you can't read? First, for sending and receiving: From the govt. FAQ

Must I encrypt my email if it contains personal information?

If it is not technically feasible to do so, then no. However, you should implement best practices by not sending unencrypted personal information in an email. There are alternative methods to communicate personal information other through email, such as establishing a secure website that requires safeguards such as a username and password to conduct transactions involving personal information.

Next, for storage: http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR1700reg.pdf

Record or Records, any material upon which written, drawn, spoken, visual, or electromagnetic information or images are recorded or preserved, regardless of physical form or characteristics.

and

Encryption of all personal information stored on laptops or other portable devices;

So any email containing personal info on a laptop or a smartphone, iPad or other device MUST be encrypted. Or are you going to just ban all laptops, smartphones, etc/?

I think yours is a silly post. This isn't the gubbermint coming to kill your favorite BBS.

The law specifically concerns itself with entities that store information such as SSNs, account numbers or state ID numbers. Read the law if you're actually curious.

Of course, IANAL.

But encryption of live servers and databases is a farce.

It's certainly pretty difficult, even in simple cases like encrypted card numbers. You pretty much either need a hardware security module, or you have to enter a key on every startup (not really OK for live servers that really should boot on their own accord), or you have to have some horrible off-site key management and decryption system.

I'm not so sure that this law mandates it though. This only mentions portable devices, so far as I can see: http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR1700reg.pdf (Though I haven't read the whole thing and it's not my jurisdiction, and IANAL anyway, so I may have got the wrong end of the stick). It would have been more helpful if the article, or at least the article the article links to as its source, had actually linked to the bits of the law they were talking about. Or at all, for that matter.

The only reason THEY can get away with it is because ... guess what ... government agencies are excluded. "Do as I say, not as I do."

I think you may want to read Mass. Executive Order 5-04. They have to follow this so they are not exempt. http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3terminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Legislation+%26+Executive+Orders&L2=Executive+Orders&sid=Agov3&b=terminalcontent&f=Executive+Orders_executive_order_504&csid=Agov3

> Actually, I read the article that was referenced in the summary, and the article that was
> referenced in that article. Neither one said anything like what you just posted.

As usual on most topics, the articles are more or less complete bullshit. The text of the law (all 4 pages of it) is at http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR1700reg.pdf and the definition you want is on page 2 under "Personal information" in the alphabetical list of definitions.

What I find scary, really, is that any time I see an article on a topic I know something about it's pretty bogus. Do I really have any indication that the press does better on topics I _don't_ know about? :(

Ask the author of the article where he got that notion from.

That phrase does not appear in the law nor in Massachusetts FAQ.

Nor does anything like it, except in reference to

1. public networks
2. wireless
3. laptops & portable devices

Ask the author of the article where he got that notion from.

That phrase does not appear in the law nor in Massachusetts FAQ.

Nor does anything like it, except in reference to

1. public networks
2. wireless
3. laptops & portable devices

Agreed. I just read 201 CMR 17.00 (it's 4 pages,and really not that scary: http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR1700reg.pdf )

Two really important points; encryption on disk means if it's on a portable device such as a laptop, not on a server in a secure location. Encryption in transfer means if it's going over a public network (such as the Internet) - in theory, it wouldn't even cover traffic within a corporate LAN.
 

Stupid law. It means, for example, that you can no longer keep an email in unencrypted form.

This is why you should never ask Slashdotters for legal advice. Not only are they not lawyers, they overestimate their psychic abilities, and are willing to interpret a law based on a third-hand summary.

Neither TFA (actually a blog by somebody who's using this kerfuffle to encourage people to move to Microsoft SQL server) or the original Information Week article are specific as to who this law applies to. I found the text of the law online:

http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR1700reg.pdf

Remarkably readable for legislation. It applies to anybody who "receives, stores, maintains, processes, or otherwise has access to personal information in connection with the provision of goods or services or in connection with employment." So your email is OK.

Despite what TFA says, I don't see anything that would require anybody to encrypt their databases. The encrypted transmission requirement is there, but it isn't as if SSL is rocket science. But the biggest misinformation in TFA is what has to be protected. Somebody's first and last name isn't sensitive unless it's transmitted or stored "in combination with any one or more of the following data elements that relate to such resident: (a) Social Security number; (b) driver's license number or state-issued identification card number; or (c) financial account number, or credit or debit card number". It then goes on to say that any information that's in the public record is not sensitive and does not need to be protected.

All in all, a pretty reasonable law that merely mandates practices that are already standard at many companies — including Facebook.

Here's a kicker - this law apparently does not apply to the politicians themselves. From the FAQ at http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR17faqs.pdf

Does 201 CMR 17.00 apply to municipalities?
No. 201 CMR 17.01 specifically excludes from the definition of “person” any “agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the Commonwealth, or any of its branches, or any political subdivision thereof.” Consequently, the regulation does not apply to municipalities.

So it seems if your little business gets its 100-member customer db hacked, you're out half a million dollars; if the State of Massachusetts gets its DMV records hacked, they pay you zilch... or am I reading this wrong?

eihab seems to have it right.

IANAL, either, but I did read the whole law and there is no broad encryption mandate as the SQL Mag author claimed.

The encryption-related sections of the law that I can find (17.04 (3) & (5)) actually mandate:

• “(3) Encryption of all transmitted records and files containing personal information that will travel across public networks, and encryption of all data containing personal information to be transmitted wirelessly.”
• “(5) Encryption of all personal information stored on laptops or other portable devices;”.

In other words, if you send data over public networks, or wirelessly, or store it on laptops, you should encrypt it. Excuse me for not getting excited about this.

Law: 201 CMR 17.00 reg

FAQ: 201 CMR 17 faqs

The whole thing seems pretty sensible overall.

eihab seems to have it right.

IANAL, either, but I did read the whole law and there is no broad encryption mandate as the SQL Mag author claimed.

The encryption-related sections of the law that I can find (17.04 (3) & (5)) actually mandate:

• “(3) Encryption of all transmitted records and files containing personal information that will travel across public networks, and encryption of all data containing personal information to be transmitted wirelessly.”
• “(5) Encryption of all personal information stored on laptops or other portable devices;”.

In other words, if you send data over public networks, or wirelessly, or store it on laptops, you should encrypt it. Excuse me for not getting excited about this.

Law: 201 CMR 17.00 reg

FAQ: 201 CMR 17 faqs

The whole thing seems pretty sensible overall.

As I pointed out - government agencies ARE excluded.

Not under Mass. Gen. Law 93H, which orders this CMR to be implemented. 93H applies to all of the government agencies, and they have corresponding sections in the CMR. For example, here is the one for the attorney general's office.

And with your name, work address, and job title, that's enough to get all your other info.

Really? Prove this contention and please provide us with the credit card or bank account number of the governor. I'll be soundly impressed with your l33t skillz.

Also - the part about requiring antivirus software means that all those mainframes have to be junked, because the law was framed by people who only know Windows. Fucktards.

Only if technically feasible, and only to the point required to be "reasonably" up to date. If you're running *nix, then you can determine what's technically feasible.

Unfortunately, government agencies are excluded from the law.

In addition to my earlier post, check out this. It's the CMR section for the attorney general's office, specifically on safeguarding personal information. It may look remarkably similar to the 201 CMR that applies to businesses.

Unfortunately, government agencies are excluded from the law.

Well, this law, which is really just an implemented regulation in the Code. of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) section 201 which governs businesses and consumer affairs. This regulation, though, is implemented pursuant to Massachusetts General Law 93H, which orders the department of consumer affairs and business regulation to adopt the regulation; and also orders the supervisor of records (a government agency), the state auditor, the treasurer, the state secretary, the attorney general, and the legislative and judicial branches to adopt similar rules and regulations.

So, no - government agencies still have to comply with 93H, which is the law that orders this regulation applying to businesses to be implemented.