I was going to register to vote via the Rock the Vote website, until I discovered that the page wasn't encrypted, and asked for my name, address, driver's license OR last 4 of my social security #, etc.
I'll be doing this registration in person. No sense in letting multiple hands have the opportunity of losing my data, just the State of Connecticut...
Sometimes maybe might be is not
"in the business of".
Honestly, I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but I don't agree with you. I think "engaging in the business of" can be as simple as a one-time event, like a corporate network admin receiving a court order to search for logs related to network (mis)use. Therefore, it seems to me that, since there is an off-chance you might be subpoenaed, you need to get a PI license...or endure the cost of having someone come in with that license, to do exactly the same thing you could have done.
I wonder where NYCL is...maybe he could provide some insight into what the law REALLY means (yes, I'm aware he's in copyright law, but this legalese seems pretty generic).
We have a contract worker in our network communications department who is hourly; he is required to have his Treo with him, and occasionally does work during off-hours (I know because I've received e-mails from him at odd times).
You aren't. You are in the business of running a computer network. That is what you were employed to do. This section of the law does NOT APPLY TO YOU.
For some people, being in the business of running a computer network includes assisting law enforcement officials in gathering data, in the case of a lawsuit or criminal proceeding. Like this man suggests, the act of searching someone's archive COULD be construed as investigating data that isn't available to the public. According to the code,
Sec. 1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY. (a) A person acts as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the person:
(2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee;
While this may not be their primary job function, it is still part of their "business," as you like to describe it.
While the fact that the author of the law didn't intend for it to be that way, and the enforcement group doesn't intend to enforce it that way, I am concerned that cases against people who access or misuse network resources could be thrown out of court, because of improper licensure of the person gathering the data (network engineer, security specialist, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to register to vote via the Rock the Vote website, until I discovered that the page wasn't encrypted, and asked for my name, address, driver's license OR last 4 of my social security #, etc. I'll be doing this registration in person. No sense in letting multiple hands have the opportunity of losing my data, just the State of Connecticut...
This car is a triumph...I'm making a note here - huge success.
I go with Cisco, myself...so much for cheap!
Sometimes maybe might be is not "in the business of".
Honestly, I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but I don't agree with you. I think "engaging in the business of" can be as simple as a one-time event, like a corporate network admin receiving a court order to search for logs related to network (mis)use. Therefore, it seems to me that, since there is an off-chance you might be subpoenaed, you need to get a PI license...or endure the cost of having someone come in with that license, to do exactly the same thing you could have done.
I wonder where NYCL is...maybe he could provide some insight into what the law REALLY means (yes, I'm aware he's in copyright law, but this legalese seems pretty generic).
We have a contract worker in our network communications department who is hourly; he is required to have his Treo with him, and occasionally does work during off-hours (I know because I've received e-mails from him at odd times).
...I wished I wasn't overtime exempt.
You aren't. You are in the business of running a computer network. That is what you were employed to do. This section of the law does NOT APPLY TO YOU.
For some people, being in the business of running a computer network includes assisting law enforcement officials in gathering data, in the case of a lawsuit or criminal proceeding. Like this man suggests, the act of searching someone's archive COULD be construed as investigating data that isn't available to the public. According to the code,
Sec. 1702.104. INVESTIGATIONS COMPANY. (a) A person acts as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the person: (2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee;
While this may not be their primary job function, it is still part of their "business," as you like to describe it.
While the fact that the author of the law didn't intend for it to be that way, and the enforcement group doesn't intend to enforce it that way, I am concerned that cases against people who access or misuse network resources could be thrown out of court, because of improper licensure of the person gathering the data (network engineer, security specialist, etc).