Customer proprietary network information (CPNI) is the data collected by telecommunications companies about a consumer's telephone calls.
It has to do with private account information like SSNs. This appears to be another use of a technical term used that you have no idea what it means and for some reason won't even look up.
Trial or no trial, this is a civil matter
Wrong again. This is a regulatory matter as the the company failed to follow the Communications Act.
The failure to reasonably secure customers’ proprietary information violates a carrier’s statutory duty under the Communications Act to protect that information, and also constitutes an unjust and unreasonable practice in violation of the Act.
A couple of points; 1. The VDSL2 of 100Mmps only works for 500 meters. After that it slows down even more. At 1000m it is down to 50MBps. 2. The article talks about 10Gb/s which is two orders of magnitude faster.
I dont know, but they only need to keep on the computer the fact that they have verified it, not the actual verification process.
If a dispute comes up as to who opened the account the company needs to show the data they used to verify against. If they don't have the data they can not prove they verified the identity correctly.
(probably how they verify the data)
The banks ask those questions when the account is opened. In my bank they ask for a security password that I supplied.
At that time I was the President of the Computer Science Course Union and very involved with the discussions about this issue. I was at every faculty meeting where the decisions about this policy were discussed and made. Here are the answers to your questions.
1) Had there been attacks on women on campus or in the area?
No. There had been no sexual assaults on campus in the previous months.
Was the closure actually to discourage anyone (including women) from hanging around the labs late at night when the crime rate is higher (before a camera was installed)?
No. This is a very quiet University in a very quiet city. I was involved in the discussion and phrases like the one I referenced were uttered. I didn't say they were quotes because I can not remember the exact wording. There was no mention of crime rates in any of the discussions. It was all about possible perceived danger and "leveling the playing field".
3) Was the workload for the courses that used the labs such that it likely required late night working?
No. I was also a "programming consultant" at that time. We were the resource that students could go to if they had problems with their code. In my opinion the students had plenty of time to get the work done. There were many student who prefer to work straight through to complete the assignment in a single sitting. There were other students who waited till the last minute to get things done. It is what many University students do. They have not learned to plan their time and they need a few late nights to learn. Other students worked part time and sometimes needed to work late to complete assignments. It is not about work load but flexibility in planning when to do the work.
You make it sound as if this was unnecessary complaining by some women, but is this the case?
There was not a single documented case of a woman complaining. The Department admitted they were acting "proactively" to fix a problem that there was no evidence that actually existed. In fact there were many women protesting that the labs were closed because that too could not access them when desired.
Furthermore, have you ever walked around the campus late at night as a woman? (or at least talked to women about this issue)?
At that time, yes. As the Course Union President I talked to a number of female students who were incenses that the labs were closed. A number of them were also astounded at the twisted logic that denied them access because a theoretical person may not want to use the labs. On the safety front, our campus has a Safe Walk Program. One phone call will bring a campus security officer to the lab to escort the student to their car. Also, all the labs require a key card to enter.
It came down to removing choice from a large segment of the student population because there could be a few people who did not feel safe late at night.
This reminds me of a policy that was caused the closure of Computer Science labs between 2AM and 6AM. The justification went something like this;
There are women who are afraid to be on campus late at night and therefore will not access the computer labs during that time. If men have access to the labs at that time they will have an unfair advantage in completing their work. Therefore to keep access equal the labs will be closed
It lasted about two months until they got security cameras in the labs. I think that was a face saving thing as many women on campus were upset about the closure too. This is the same faculty that shut off the phones in the labs because they could be used to make long distance calls (with some work). They forgot that those same phones could be used to call security if needed. This whole idea of making everyone equally bad is just stupid.
they'll sell information to criminals using the information for identity theft instead of unlocking stolen phones.
AT&T didn't sell the information this time. Some AT&T employees stole the information and sold it. AT&T is being fined for having lax procedures that allowed the original theft.
What is your solution?
By the way, the use of profanity does not strengthen your argument.
This is the first time AT&T has been found guilty of this charge. Sure it is a slap on the wrist but if they do it again I bet the slap will be much harder.
There is no mission critical software in Halo you frigging idiot.
Did I mention Halo?
Again, my dear moron, nobody is talking about mission critical software but you.
This is a general discussion about Easter Eggs and not just Easter Eggs in games. I have no problem with Easter Eggs in Games. I was just pointing out that in some instances Easter eggs are a bad idea.
Do you really want your payment system to go down due to a poorly written, untested Easter Egg? Is your boss going to be happy if the company losses thousands of ollars an hour because they can not take payments. There are places where Easter Eggs are OK and places where they are not.
Have you ever been able to have a polite conversation? Calling people names is generally bad form.
Since you have nothing to say about the argument you instead attack the person making the argument. You may want to learn how to have a discussion and avoid ad hominem. If you have something to add to the conversation and not just make a personal attack I am willing to listen.
I'd lay odds that's more the entire combined output of all rechargeable batteries in the country.
I'll take that bet. If you add all the batteries in Tesla model S, Chevy Volt Nissan Leaf, Toyota, Prias, Mitsu i-MiEV, Ford Focus Electric, etc they account for more than 5MWh. Just 2/3rd of the Tesla production accounts for over half the 5MWh.
You have no understanding what "mission critical" means. Mission critical means anything that causes a major failure if the component fails. It has nothing to do with space missions. Do you really want a telephone switching system to go down due to some idiot programmer's Easter Egg? How about thousands of credit card numbers being exposed due to an poorly designed Easter Egg? Much sofwter can have bugs and things move along. In mission critical software a small glitch can cause huge problems. Do you really think there is a place for Easter Eggs in mission critical software?
Inferring that I have never written tightly specified and reviewed code just because I know that in the general case that isn't even remotely the case is patently absurd.
Then you know that in "tightly specified and reviewed code" your statement is admittedly false.
To do what? Give police information they already know? To call an ambulance that won't go there because the area is not secure? This is only going to be used when communication between terrorist has more value than communication from civilians. It is not going to be used in every emergency.
I have thought of most of the alternatives. The issue is that no having cell phones available makes widespread terrorist attacks more complex and less effective.
A default plan is less able to react to police/military action. For example there can not be watchers using cell phones warning of approaching troops. Will turning of cell phones stop terrorist attacks? No. Will leaving cell phones on help terrorists? Probably, as demonstrated in Mumbai. Will turning cell phone off make widespread terrorist attacks less effective? Possibly as it will make communications more difficult. In this case anything to make the execution (pun intended) of a terrorist operation is a good thing.
No one is banning anything. All they are doing is crippling one communication tool in a small area during a crisis. When the crisis is over the cell phones come back on.
With the funds used to acquire or build the weapons in use in any attack,
An AK-47 and a thousand round of ammunition is pretty inexpensive.
There are many methods of communicating wirelessly, GSM and other cell technologies aren't the only one.
True but they are more complex requiring more people and more equipment, and are more expensive. That exposes the plan to a higher chance of being infiltrated and stopped. Anyone can buy a burner phone at a corner store.
If the US ever used this capability during an occupy movement there would be law suits and the Government would lose. If there was an Arab Spring incident in the US it would not matter if this procedure was known or not. There would be much larger issues.
That is not the point. Sure there were terrorist attacks before cell phones. The issue is that terrorists are using cell phones to better coordinate. The police/military have their own communication network that does not rely on consumer cellular networks. Taking communication capability away from terrorists during an attack will make the attacks less effective.
Slashdot Mirror
This technology is 40 time as fast as VDSL2 at it's fastest.
show me an instance where a civilian got off with a slap on the wrist violating FCC regulations regarding securing CPNI
Show me where a civilian can violate those regulations. Those regulations govern companies not individuals.
By the way, this has nothing to do with CPNI.
Customer proprietary network information (CPNI) is the data collected by telecommunications companies about a consumer's telephone calls.
It has to do with private account information like SSNs. This appears to be another use of a technical term used that you have no idea what it means and for some reason won't even look up.
Trial or no trial, this is a civil matter
Wrong again. This is a regulatory matter as the the company failed to follow the Communications Act.
The failure to reasonably secure customers’ proprietary information violates a carrier’s statutory duty under the Communications Act to protect that information, and also constitutes an unjust and unreasonable practice in violation of the Act.
A couple of points;
1. The VDSL2 of 100Mmps only works for 500 meters. After that it slows down even more. At 1000m it is down to 50MBps.
2. The article talks about 10Gb/s which is two orders of magnitude faster.
I dont know, but they only need to keep on the computer the fact that they have verified it, not the actual verification process.
If a dispute comes up as to who opened the account the company needs to show the data they used to verify against. If they don't have the data they can not prove they verified the identity correctly.
(probably how they verify the data)
The banks ask those questions when the account is opened. In my bank they ask for a security password that I supplied.
It's funny how this was a civil trial
There was no trial. It was a consent decree and not a court case. You might want to look up what civil penalty actually means.
A civil penalty or civil fine is a financial penalty imposed by a government agency as restitution for wrongdoing.
Civil penalty has nothing to do with what type of court, civil or criminal.
At that time I was the President of the Computer Science Course Union and very involved with the discussions about this issue. I was at every faculty meeting where the decisions about this policy were discussed and made. Here are the answers to your questions.
1) Had there been attacks on women on campus or in the area?
No. There had been no sexual assaults on campus in the previous months.
Was the closure actually to discourage anyone (including women) from hanging around the labs late at night when the crime rate is higher (before a camera was installed)?
No. This is a very quiet University in a very quiet city. I was involved in the discussion and phrases like the one I referenced were uttered. I didn't say they were quotes because I can not remember the exact wording. There was no mention of crime rates in any of the discussions. It was all about possible perceived danger and "leveling the playing field".
3) Was the workload for the courses that used the labs such that it likely required late night working?
No. I was also a "programming consultant" at that time. We were the resource that students could go to if they had problems with their code. In my opinion the students had plenty of time to get the work done. There were many student who prefer to work straight through to complete the assignment in a single sitting. There were other students who waited till the last minute to get things done. It is what many University students do. They have not learned to plan their time and they need a few late nights to learn. Other students worked part time and sometimes needed to work late to complete assignments. It is not about work load but flexibility in planning when to do the work.
You make it sound as if this was unnecessary complaining by some women, but is this the case?
There was not a single documented case of a woman complaining. The Department admitted they were acting "proactively" to fix a problem that there was no evidence that actually existed. In fact there were many women protesting that the labs were closed because that too could not access them when desired.
Furthermore, have you ever walked around the campus late at night as a woman? (or at least talked to women about this issue)?
At that time, yes. As the Course Union President I talked to a number of female students who were incenses that the labs were closed. A number of them were also astounded at the twisted logic that denied them access because a theoretical person may not want to use the labs. On the safety front, our campus has a Safe Walk Program. One phone call will bring a campus security officer to the lab to escort the student to their car. Also, all the labs require a key card to enter.
It came down to removing choice from a large segment of the student population because there could be a few people who did not feel safe late at night.
banking information (yes, they have access to that, too; it's amazing that wasn't also stolen, or maybe it was)
Where is this information coming from. It is not in the article.
Maybe convincing them to fix the problem? I don't think 0.02% of their annual revenue will do that.
You know that how? Maybe the threat of much higher fines if it happens again may have the desired effect.
It is funny how people get a break on a first offense but companies don't.
So how to companies in Australia verify that a customer is not impersonating someone else?
This reminds me of a policy that was caused the closure of Computer Science labs between 2AM and 6AM. The justification went something like this;
There are women who are afraid to be on campus late at night and therefore will not access the computer labs during that time. If men have access to the labs at that time they will have an unfair advantage in completing their work. Therefore to keep access equal the labs will be closed
It lasted about two months until they got security cameras in the labs. I think that was a face saving thing as many women on campus were upset about the closure too. This is the same faculty that shut off the phones in the labs because they could be used to make long distance calls (with some work). They forgot that those same phones could be used to call security if needed. This whole idea of making everyone equally bad is just stupid.
they'll sell information to criminals using the information for identity theft instead of unlocking stolen phones.
AT&T didn't sell the information this time. Some AT&T employees stole the information and sold it. AT&T is being fined for having lax procedures that allowed the original theft.
What is your solution?
By the way, the use of profanity does not strengthen your argument.
This is the first time AT&T has been found guilty of this charge. Sure it is a slap on the wrist but if they do it again I bet the slap will be much harder.
There is no mission critical software in Halo you frigging idiot.
Did I mention Halo?
Again, my dear moron, nobody is talking about mission critical software but you.
This is a general discussion about Easter Eggs and not just Easter Eggs in games. I have no problem with Easter Eggs in Games. I was just pointing out that in some instances Easter eggs are a bad idea.
Do you really want your payment system to go down due to a poorly written, untested Easter Egg? Is your boss going to be happy if the company losses thousands of ollars an hour because they can not take payments. There are places where Easter Eggs are OK and places where they are not.
Have you ever been able to have a polite conversation? Calling people names is generally bad form.
Since you have nothing to say about the argument you instead attack the person making the argument. You may want to learn how to have a discussion and avoid ad hominem. If you have something to add to the conversation and not just make a personal attack I am willing to listen.
I'd lay odds that's more the entire combined output of all rechargeable batteries in the country.
I'll take that bet. If you add all the batteries in Tesla model S, Chevy Volt Nissan Leaf, Toyota, Prias, Mitsu i-MiEV, Ford Focus Electric, etc they account for more than 5MWh. Just 2/3rd of the Tesla production accounts for over half the 5MWh.
That do not go ten miles in a city.
You have no understanding what "mission critical" means. Mission critical means anything that causes a major failure if the component fails. It has nothing to do with space missions. Do you really want a telephone switching system to go down due to some idiot programmer's Easter Egg? How about thousands of credit card numbers being exposed due to an poorly designed Easter Egg? Much sofwter can have bugs and things move along. In mission critical software a small glitch can cause huge problems. Do you really think there is a place for Easter Eggs in mission critical software?
Inferring that I have never written tightly specified and reviewed code just because I know that in the general case that isn't even remotely the case is patently absurd.
Then you know that in "tightly specified and reviewed code" your statement is admittedly false.
Tell that to the people of Munbai. They will disagree.
To do what? Give police information they already know? To call an ambulance that won't go there because the area is not secure? This is only going to be used when communication between terrorist has more value than communication from civilians. It is not going to be used in every emergency.
I have thought of most of the alternatives. The issue is that no having cell phones available makes widespread terrorist attacks more complex and less effective.
A default plan is less able to react to police/military action. For example there can not be watchers using cell phones warning of approaching troops. Will turning of cell phones stop terrorist attacks? No. Will leaving cell phones on help terrorists? Probably, as demonstrated in Mumbai. Will turning cell phone off make widespread terrorist attacks less effective? Possibly as it will make communications more difficult. In this case anything to make the execution (pun intended) of a terrorist operation is a good thing.
No one is banning anything. All they are doing is crippling one communication tool in a small area during a crisis. When the crisis is over the cell phones come back on.
With the funds used to acquire or build the weapons in use in any attack,
An AK-47 and a thousand round of ammunition is pretty inexpensive.
There are many methods of communicating wirelessly, GSM and other cell technologies aren't the only one.
True but they are more complex requiring more people and more equipment, and are more expensive. That exposes the plan to a higher chance of being infiltrated and stopped. Anyone can buy a burner phone at a corner store.
If the US ever used this capability during an occupy movement there would be law suits and the Government would lose. If there was an Arab Spring incident in the US it would not matter if this procedure was known or not. There would be much larger issues.
That is not the point. Sure there were terrorist attacks before cell phones. The issue is that terrorists are using cell phones to better coordinate. The police/military have their own communication network that does not rely on consumer cellular networks. Taking communication capability away from terrorists during an attack will make the attacks less effective.
The terrorists used cell phone to coordinate their attacks and coordinate response to police and military actions.