Not necessarily the data owner. Authorization from one of the owners of the computers/data/account/something or that entity's duly designated representative. Authorization from -somebody- who might reasonably have the right to grant authorization.
The folks involved in this scheme clearly understood that they lacked valid authorization to access those computers in the manner they did. It wasn't even subtle or gray-area.
any non absolutely moron candidate can get into speed about "TCP/IP deep inspection" in few months
Well, there's your mistake. You think a few months of training will permit an average programmer to do useful, safe work of that nature. Give it a try some time and see how well you fare.
When I said deep TCP/IP knowledge I meant someone who plays with the bits in the packets and likes it.
What I got was people who hadn't yet learned that TCP actually requires ICMP fragmentation-needed messages in order to work, so you can't just block ICMP at the firewall.
Fair question. The answer is this: genius can't be trained. It is improved with training but it has to be there already. The work in question required a particular kind of genius with enough of the right kind of experience to feed the insights and frame the work correctly so that others who also had the skill but didn't have the insight could flesh it out and build it.
Perhaps 10,000 people in the world could have done it. The cross-section of that with folks who had clearances, wanted to work in Virginia and looked for a job that year turned out to be zero.
Also, and I may just be picking a nit here, he was accused of downloading marked classified information from a classified network to an unclassified network and then taking it home. Clinton was accused of transmitting unmarked classified information entirely on unclassified networks.
Similar in the way that red and blue are similar: they're both colors.
Actually, I figure it was the kind of jobs for which there's a higher demand than supply, the type not just anybody can learn.
I once hired for a job that required a security clearance and some deep TCP/IP packet skills. In a year I found -zero- qualified applicants at any price. Hundreds of applicants. Three folks who might have had the necessary TCP/IP skill but no clearance. Plenty with clearances but not the skill. One guy I hired for a different position which didn't require the depth of TCP/IP skill. But none for the job I needed to fill.
So yeah, if you ever sit on this side of the table you'll discover there are a lot of folks who aren't qualified to do the work they seek. Not just aren't worth the money they want, actually aren't capable of doing the jobs they want to do at any price. Don't have the minds for it. Don't have the skills. Don't have the experience to be able to make good judgement calls.
Well, both approaches have one commonality: they're completely unreasonable.
A reasonable approach would work like Miss Utility: give the cable's owner has a brief period of time to act. So long as they act promptly the new installer may not touch. Miss the deadline and any damage to their infrastructure is on them instead of on the new installer.
Grateful? No, not grateful. But if you can be replaced with a 20-line shell script, your hours are not very valuable and no one should pretend that they are. Least of all you.
Frontier and AT&T are half right: no one should be allowed to tamper with the existing attachments without notifying the company who owns those wires and giving them reasonable opportunity to act. That way lies chaos and disruption.
They're dead wrong about the "negotiate access" thing though. Those utility poles are in public right of ways. The public has a right to use them under common carriage rules whether their "owners" like it or not. If the utilities don't like it, the localities can and should take them over for public use same as the roads.
I care how the whole system is put together, not just the software, the servers the routers or even just the computer parts. So I spend the effort learning how it all fits together. And then my imagination starts kicking out ways to make it better. Software that can bridge two processes and make activity more reliable and faster to complete. System architectures which avoid identifiable points of failure. Ways which take in to account the whole system. And (this is critically important) changes which are incrementally achievable from where the system stands today... because greenfield deployments are rare.
Right now I'm working Devops. My last great coup was continuity of operations. I'd like to break in to network protocol R&D but that opportunity hasn't come by yet. I have a great design for a TCP/DNS replacement that would facilitate consumer-level mobile and multihomed networks that aren't practical today because of the high cost of BGP.
No, I made about 30k my first year out of school and about 50k my third. I've been putting money into the bank ever since, to the point where I could stay out for 3 to 5 years if I was willing to postpone retirement.
Now I'm well in to the six figures because employers want the skills I have to offer. I recently started working somewhere with 5 weeks vacation and the ability to work from home 2 days a week. Because that's what I wanted.
Give me what I want and deserve or another employer will. That's worked pretty well for me my entire career. Sometimes they gave me what I wanted. Sometimes another employer did.
Reminding me to feel grateful for a couple percent you gave me at my formal review is annoying. I don't feel grateful. I feel like a cog in the machine.
use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself
"I do not concede your claim" neither agrees nor disagrees with the claim. It makes no commitment, no statement of truth. It answers a yes/no question with "maybe."
"Because Costello did not respond to all three requests for admissions within 30 days of receiving them, and did not ask for an extension of time, as required by Indiana trial rules, Costello admitted to the liabilities and damages by default. He also did not appear at a July 2013 hearing, according to court records."
Courts don't like to be ignored. It's the worst possible thing you can do.
Respond promptly and equivocate: "I do not concede your claim. I expect to deny your claim." Equivocation lets you back away from a statement later if it turns out you were wrong or if the statement could have had some unintended legal meaning.
I'm _for_ universal basic income but only if the recipients can opt out and only if those who do not opt out are ineligible to vote for as long as they continue receiving payments.
There is something just plain crooked about voting yourself other people's money.
Infringement happens when a non-ephemeral copy is made. That's the only time infringement can happen. If I dynamically link, I consume the API into my binary object, but nothing else. I can then distributed the GPL-covered library and the closed source program in separate files. So long as I also provide the source code for the GPL-covered library, the fact that the consumption of the API was fair use means that no GPL requirements attach to the closed source file.
Whole different story if I statically link it. But why would I?
Actually, you have a point here. If copying the API is fair use then distributing software that dynamically links to an API is no longer subject to the GPL or the LGPL _on the library_ that implements the API. Which makes the GPL and LGPL legally equivalent.
Then again, that has been the defacto standard anyway, regardless of what the GPL and LGPL say. So, no real change.
But with it likely comes harsh(er) DRM that means total end to end tracking.
Why would Property need to be cryptographically encumbered by any DRM? There's no need to track the Property, you only need to track the Right. The Right need not be attached to the Property. It need only demonstrate that the possessor of one copy of the Right has the right to possess one copy of the Property.
As you pointed out, block chains would be a reasonable tool for this. But attach the blockchain to a certificate of ownership, not to the property itself.
If you look very far upstream from the commodity Internet access service, most of the billing is usage-based. When ISPs sell to each other they use a "95th percentile" standard. The mbps usage rate you're just below 95% of the time is what you get billed for.
Severing the last mile leases from the ISP service would address a number of serious problems, but usage-based billing is not one of them.
Don't lump Manning or Assange in with Snowden. Manning was an unhappy little cretin who decided to share the misery. He had and has no nobility of purpose. Assange is a megalomaniac. He just wants the attention and figured he'd get it if he picked a fight with goliath.
No, you're just not getting it. They weren't breaking any laws. They have a massive amount of internal oversight to stop them from breaking any laws. Review boards and sign offs and you wouldn't believe the paperwork.
Here's what they don't have.
When a program is proposed or changed, nobody is tasked with brainstorming how the program or data could be misused. Because nobody assesses this, no mitigations are built in to the program. The entire focus of the oversight is on complying with the law.
You're welcome to look at me all you want. If you'd followed my home page link and done the slightest bit of research, you'd have answered your questions.
It's not as if shrouded my identity in secrecy and posted anonymously. Like you did.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily the data owner. Authorization from one of the owners of the computers/data/account/something or that entity's duly designated representative. Authorization from -somebody- who might reasonably have the right to grant authorization.
The folks involved in this scheme clearly understood that they lacked valid authorization to access those computers in the manner they did. It wasn't even subtle or gray-area.
any non absolutely moron candidate can get into speed about "TCP/IP deep inspection" in few months
Well, there's your mistake. You think a few months of training will permit an average programmer to do useful, safe work of that nature. Give it a try some time and see how well you fare.
When I said deep TCP/IP knowledge I meant someone who plays with the bits in the packets and likes it.
What I got was people who hadn't yet learned that TCP actually requires ICMP fragmentation-needed messages in order to work, so you can't just block ICMP at the firewall.
Fair question. The answer is this: genius can't be trained. It is improved with training but it has to be there already. The work in question required a particular kind of genius with enough of the right kind of experience to feed the insights and frame the work correctly so that others who also had the skill but didn't have the insight could flesh it out and build it.
Perhaps 10,000 people in the world could have done it. The cross-section of that with folks who had clearances, wanted to work in Virginia and looked for a job that year turned out to be zero.
Generally, yeah. But when the project is due in 12 months, that does not work out.
Also, and I may just be picking a nit here, he was accused of downloading marked classified information from a classified network to an unclassified network and then taking it home. Clinton was accused of transmitting unmarked classified information entirely on unclassified networks.
Similar in the way that red and blue are similar: they're both colors.
Actually, I figure it was the kind of jobs for which there's a higher demand than supply, the type not just anybody can learn.
I once hired for a job that required a security clearance and some deep TCP/IP packet skills. In a year I found -zero- qualified applicants at any price. Hundreds of applicants. Three folks who might have had the necessary TCP/IP skill but no clearance. Plenty with clearances but not the skill. One guy I hired for a different position which didn't require the depth of TCP/IP skill. But none for the job I needed to fill.
So yeah, if you ever sit on this side of the table you'll discover there are a lot of folks who aren't qualified to do the work they seek. Not just aren't worth the money they want, actually aren't capable of doing the jobs they want to do at any price. Don't have the minds for it. Don't have the skills. Don't have the experience to be able to make good judgement calls.
Well, both approaches have one commonality: they're completely unreasonable.
A reasonable approach would work like Miss Utility: give the cable's owner has a brief period of time to act. So long as they act promptly the new installer may not touch. Miss the deadline and any damage to their infrastructure is on them instead of on the new installer.
Grateful? No, not grateful. But if you can be replaced with a 20-line shell script, your hours are not very valuable and no one should pretend that they are. Least of all you.
Frontier and AT&T are half right: no one should be allowed to tamper with the existing attachments without notifying the company who owns those wires and giving them reasonable opportunity to act. That way lies chaos and disruption.
They're dead wrong about the "negotiate access" thing though. Those utility poles are in public right of ways. The public has a right to use them under common carriage rules whether their "owners" like it or not. If the utilities don't like it, the localities can and should take them over for public use same as the roads.
Curiosity and imagination mostly.
I care how the whole system is put together, not just the software, the servers the routers or even just the computer parts. So I spend the effort learning how it all fits together. And then my imagination starts kicking out ways to make it better. Software that can bridge two processes and make activity more reliable and faster to complete. System architectures which avoid identifiable points of failure. Ways which take in to account the whole system. And (this is critically important) changes which are incrementally achievable from where the system stands today... because greenfield deployments are rare.
Right now I'm working Devops. My last great coup was continuity of operations. I'd like to break in to network protocol R&D but that opportunity hasn't come by yet. I have a great design for a TCP/DNS replacement that would facilitate consumer-level mobile and multihomed networks that aren't practical today because of the high cost of BGP.
No, I made about 30k my first year out of school and about 50k my third. I've been putting money into the bank ever since, to the point where I could stay out for 3 to 5 years if I was willing to postpone retirement.
Now I'm well in to the six figures because employers want the skills I have to offer. I recently started working somewhere with 5 weeks vacation and the ability to work from home 2 days a week. Because that's what I wanted.
Give me what I want and deserve or another employer will. That's worked pretty well for me my entire career. Sometimes they gave me what I wanted. Sometimes another employer did.
Reminding me to feel grateful for a couple percent you gave me at my formal review is annoying. I don't feel grateful. I feel like a cog in the machine.
equivocate:
use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself
"I do not concede your claim" neither agrees nor disagrees with the claim. It makes no commitment, no statement of truth. It answers a yes/no question with "maybe."
"Because Costello did not respond to all three requests for admissions within 30 days of receiving them, and did not ask for an extension of time, as required by Indiana trial rules, Costello admitted to the liabilities and damages by default. He also did not appear at a July 2013 hearing, according to court records."
Courts don't like to be ignored. It's the worst possible thing you can do.
Respond promptly and equivocate: "I do not concede your claim. I expect to deny your claim." Equivocation lets you back away from a statement later if it turns out you were wrong or if the statement could have had some unintended legal meaning.
I don't see it that way, but sure: I'm against your definition of universal basic income.
I'm _for_ universal basic income but only if the recipients can opt out and only if those who do not opt out are ineligible to vote for as long as they continue receiving payments.
There is something just plain crooked about voting yourself other people's money.
Infringement happens when a non-ephemeral copy is made. That's the only time infringement can happen. If I dynamically link, I consume the API into my binary object, but nothing else. I can then distributed the GPL-covered library and the closed source program in separate files. So long as I also provide the source code for the GPL-covered library, the fact that the consumption of the API was fair use means that no GPL requirements attach to the closed source file.
Whole different story if I statically link it. But why would I?
It's of interest if you want to -sell- your copy or copies, which was the subject of the article.
Also of interest if you're accused of infringement and wish to prove your ownership.
Actually, you have a point here. If copying the API is fair use then distributing software that dynamically links to an API is no longer subject to the GPL or the LGPL _on the library_ that implements the API. Which makes the GPL and LGPL legally equivalent.
Then again, that has been the defacto standard anyway, regardless of what the GPL and LGPL say. So, no real change.
But with it likely comes harsh(er) DRM that means total end to end tracking.
Why would Property need to be cryptographically encumbered by any DRM? There's no need to track the Property, you only need to track the Right. The Right need not be attached to the Property. It need only demonstrate that the possessor of one copy of the Right has the right to possess one copy of the Property.
As you pointed out, block chains would be a reasonable tool for this. But attach the blockchain to a certificate of ownership, not to the property itself.
If you look very far upstream from the commodity Internet access service, most of the billing is usage-based. When ISPs sell to each other they use a "95th percentile" standard. The mbps usage rate you're just below 95% of the time is what you get billed for.
Severing the last mile leases from the ISP service would address a number of serious problems, but usage-based billing is not one of them.
Don't lump Manning or Assange in with Snowden. Manning was an unhappy little cretin who decided to share the misery. He had and has no nobility of purpose. Assange is a megalomaniac. He just wants the attention and figured he'd get it if he picked a fight with goliath.
No, you're just not getting it. They weren't breaking any laws. They have a massive amount of internal oversight to stop them from breaking any laws. Review boards and sign offs and you wouldn't believe the paperwork.
Here's what they don't have.
When a program is proposed or changed, nobody is tasked with brainstorming how the program or data could be misused. Because nobody assesses this, no mitigations are built in to the program. The entire focus of the oversight is on complying with the law.
You're welcome to look at me all you want. If you'd followed my home page link and done the slightest bit of research, you'd have answered your questions.
It's not as if shrouded my identity in secrecy and posted anonymously. Like you did.