Is this the same outfit that had that Second Life-ish avatar world that allowed you to speak into your mic and would move your av's lips? Onlive Traveler, I believe? Circa 1996?
Keep in mind, this isn't about who gets physical custody of the device; it's who is responsible for the ownership of the output/work (data, in this case). It's outside of the boundaries of what you would expect in a normal environment, but, like I said, I've seen it happen--it's not outside of the realm of reasonable possibility. Remember, your company has to declare all of these assets that produce work in their books, and that's one of the places where it gets sticky (again, this is a mom-n-pop vs. corporate thing, but you can't assume that mom-n-pop won't be bought out at some point).
If a company really really really wanted to get their hooks on something on a PC that you used as your work computer (code, data, etc), anything that could, possibly, maybe, be ambiguous with your work output or something that my overlap, conflict with, or be in violation of their IP rights, do you really think any and every judge in the U.S. would throw that case out because it doesn't make sense? C'mon...you read Slashdot...you've seen sillier shit happen in the judicial system (particularly with uninformed judges and well-paid lawyers) than that.
My personal experience in working closely with large corporations with teams of lawyers is that when it comes to profit-seeking company vs trusting employee, bet on the side with resources, and always assume that what is possible may in fact happen, and you can't assume that every judge will view a situation the same based on what a contract says because it won't account for every possible instance of what actually happens; you have to account for that in your decisions. Best to not leave it to chance--or, in this case, trust. That's why corporate contracts for simple relationships are so lengthy and detailed: they don't trust, they account for as much as possible up front knowing that they may end up in front of a judge or arbitrator arguing dumb points like "but I bought this PC on my personal credit card...yes, I used it to write the codebase for them, but this other codebase over here in this folder belongs to me...yes, I used the same editor for both...yes, I tested them on the same instance of Apache...yes, I make money with my personal codebase".
(personal note: that's the kind of bitterness that comes from having been there dealing with that stuff for many years. I, too, would be skeptical if I hadn't seen it myself)
That all seems to make sense, but remember that what seems rational and reasonable often gets thrown out when lawyers get involved.
So, take the scenario where maybe new management comes in (takeover, IPO, merger, whatever...). Something happens that drags the issue into court: data breach involving proprietary or customer data, software licensing fines, etc. Even if you have a written agreement saying "yes, it's Bob's laptop but he's using it for work purposes", it seems completely feasible that the IRS, a court of law, etc, would view that as a leased company asset, because it's being used for company business. Doesn't matter who purchased it, but what is being done with it. Now Bob is not using his laptop for company purposes; he is keeping his data on a company rig.
It's not as far-fetched as it seems. I work for a 300k+ employee company that used to go through exactly these types of scenarios often, sometimes (in my case, specifically) because they didn't have a computer for said employee to use (don't get me started on why a 300K employee company can't afford a desktop computer for a salaried manager to use...but I digress).
My advice to OP: don't do it, even if you get it in writing. Even if you trust your boss. Even if it feels safe. The tide can shift in a snap, and you don't want to have to share ownership of all of your stuff when Sprint or Microsoft buy your company.
Going a bit off topic: I agree with that last part...that's some horribly scary stuff. I'm sure there is a commercial (read: lobbying) aspect to it, but the larger issue is control.
I read a blog post recently (I think it might have been a photog with the same name as me, which was how I found him, or possibly a friend of his linked from his site) who was harassed and almost arrested for taking pictures in a train station--after the TSA or whomever runs the show had publicly stated that it was OK to do so.
It's all about control. Bureaucrats create shadowbox controls to keep people too scared to "cause trouble" and possibly scare their donors, and the police/security forces hired to back up said vague policies take it too far, because it's what they get paid to do.
Example du jour: the jackasses who want to take public schools and hospitals off of Google Maps/Earth. Because if Osama Bin Laden can count the number of air conditioners on top of my kids' schoolhouse, the terrorists have already won.
I think that, ultimately, is the moral to this story: if you are putting substantially more focus on the apparatus than the thing the apparatus is supposed to do, you probably don't remember exactly why you built it in the first place.
or: catching a mouse is not the same as building a mousetrap factory.
I've been thinking that since I first saw a documentary on BM about five years ago. My first thought was "how awesome, free-for-all art-fest!", but after a little research, having just watched an in-depth movie on how it started, etc, the ticket prices alone made it obvious that they had veered pretty hard off-course.
And I don't buy into the "but we have to charge x to cover expenses" crap. It may be true, but if you are out-pricing 99% of the artists who would really add color and flavor to the event, then your mission is no longer facilitating a friendly space for art: you are facilitating an event, not much different than a curator or the manager of a conference center...and that's a big difference.
So, then, Google is breaking the law by photographing people's houses and making the images public? Pointing your camera into a window is far different than pointing it into, say, a an open-air beer garden on a sidewalk in San Antonio.
Agreed...given the current state of digital music, the market is wide open, and seems to be heavily bent towards non-DRM'd music (iTunes, Amazon) anyway.
Not sure why this is news.
Now video, on the other hand...that's where the discussion belongs now.
Actually, I just read that wiki (because I don't know that much about electricity and always wondered how a faraday cage worked), and it says said cage is ineffective against static electro-magnetic signals, like radios and, presumably, GPS. They actually use the interior of a car as an example of a de facto faraday cage. And it's in Wikipedia, so it has to be true.
Unless, of course, GPS signals are different than radio. Like I said: not my department...
I was thinking maybe a heavy metal shroud so it can't get a signal. Also, what is the counter-measure to ensure people aren't gaming the units? Pay a utility guy to come out and check your odometer and compare it to the GPS data? Gubmint efficiency at it's finest...of course, they'll have to levy new taxes to pay for the program overhead. And, of course, older cars will be outlawed.
Thirdly, I'm just certain that if the GPS breaks, the gubmint will fix it at no cost to you, the vehicle owner, and will provide you with a loaner vehicle.
re: ACH...meh...that's just how my brain works. I've worked in banking for over a decade and that's just what we call it. I spent all of four minutes writing the summary.
Here I go exposing my weak grasp of the concept, but, for example, my company passes all network traffic through a proxy, and disallowed sites are blocked outright. Wouldn't it make more sense for Germany to force all ISPs doing business in their borders to do the same, as opposed to them trying to manage DNS traffic? I guess the breakdown in the concept would be: how big a server farm would the German government have to build to filter the 80 million users' traffic...
Slashdot Mirror
Is this the same outfit that had that Second Life-ish avatar world that allowed you to speak into your mic and would move your av's lips? Onlive Traveler, I believe? Circa 1996?
Ooo....good point. i didn't even think about Pixar. You're right, that has some potential.
Keep in mind, this isn't about who gets physical custody of the device; it's who is responsible for the ownership of the output/work (data, in this case). It's outside of the boundaries of what you would expect in a normal environment, but, like I said, I've seen it happen--it's not outside of the realm of reasonable possibility. Remember, your company has to declare all of these assets that produce work in their books, and that's one of the places where it gets sticky (again, this is a mom-n-pop vs. corporate thing, but you can't assume that mom-n-pop won't be bought out at some point).
If a company really really really wanted to get their hooks on something on a PC that you used as your work computer (code, data, etc), anything that could, possibly, maybe, be ambiguous with your work output or something that my overlap, conflict with, or be in violation of their IP rights, do you really think any and every judge in the U.S. would throw that case out because it doesn't make sense? C'mon...you read Slashdot...you've seen sillier shit happen in the judicial system (particularly with uninformed judges and well-paid lawyers) than that.
My personal experience in working closely with large corporations with teams of lawyers is that when it comes to profit-seeking company vs trusting employee, bet on the side with resources, and always assume that what is possible may in fact happen, and you can't assume that every judge will view a situation the same based on what a contract says because it won't account for every possible instance of what actually happens; you have to account for that in your decisions. Best to not leave it to chance--or, in this case, trust. That's why corporate contracts for simple relationships are so lengthy and detailed: they don't trust, they account for as much as possible up front knowing that they may end up in front of a judge or arbitrator arguing dumb points like "but I bought this PC on my personal credit card...yes, I used it to write the codebase for them, but this other codebase over here in this folder belongs to me...yes, I used the same editor for both...yes, I tested them on the same instance of Apache...yes, I make money with my personal codebase".
(personal note: that's the kind of bitterness that comes from having been there dealing with that stuff for many years. I, too, would be skeptical if I hadn't seen it myself)
That all seems to make sense, but remember that what seems rational and reasonable often gets thrown out when lawyers get involved.
So, take the scenario where maybe new management comes in (takeover, IPO, merger, whatever...). Something happens that drags the issue into court: data breach involving proprietary or customer data, software licensing fines, etc. Even if you have a written agreement saying "yes, it's Bob's laptop but he's using it for work purposes", it seems completely feasible that the IRS, a court of law, etc, would view that as a leased company asset, because it's being used for company business. Doesn't matter who purchased it, but what is being done with it. Now Bob is not using his laptop for company purposes; he is keeping his data on a company rig.
It's not as far-fetched as it seems. I work for a 300k+ employee company that used to go through exactly these types of scenarios often, sometimes (in my case, specifically) because they didn't have a computer for said employee to use (don't get me started on why a 300K employee company can't afford a desktop computer for a salaried manager to use...but I digress).
My advice to OP: don't do it, even if you get it in writing. Even if you trust your boss. Even if it feels safe. The tide can shift in a snap, and you don't want to have to share ownership of all of your stuff when Sprint or Microsoft buy your company.
Going a bit off topic: I agree with that last part...that's some horribly scary stuff. I'm sure there is a commercial (read: lobbying) aspect to it, but the larger issue is control.
I read a blog post recently (I think it might have been a photog with the same name as me, which was how I found him, or possibly a friend of his linked from his site) who was harassed and almost arrested for taking pictures in a train station--after the TSA or whomever runs the show had publicly stated that it was OK to do so.
It's all about control. Bureaucrats create shadowbox controls to keep people too scared to "cause trouble" and possibly scare their donors, and the police/security forces hired to back up said vague policies take it too far, because it's what they get paid to do.
Example du jour: the jackasses who want to take public schools and hospitals off of Google Maps/Earth. Because if Osama Bin Laden can count the number of air conditioners on top of my kids' schoolhouse, the terrorists have already won.
I'm sure you've seen this, but it curls my toes: http://www.ehow.com/how_2048594_inappropriate-pictures-landmarks.html
I think that, ultimately, is the moral to this story: if you are putting substantially more focus on the apparatus than the thing the apparatus is supposed to do, you probably don't remember exactly why you built it in the first place.
or: catching a mouse is not the same as building a mousetrap factory.
I've been thinking that since I first saw a documentary on BM about five years ago. My first thought was "how awesome, free-for-all art-fest!", but after a little research, having just watched an in-depth movie on how it started, etc, the ticket prices alone made it obvious that they had veered pretty hard off-course.
And I don't buy into the "but we have to charge x to cover expenses" crap. It may be true, but if you are out-pricing 99% of the artists who would really add color and flavor to the event, then your mission is no longer facilitating a friendly space for art: you are facilitating an event, not much different than a curator or the manager of a conference center...and that's a big difference.
So, then, Google is breaking the law by photographing people's houses and making the images public? Pointing your camera into a window is far different than pointing it into, say, a an open-air beer garden on a sidewalk in San Antonio.
To paraphrase Tycho Brahe, "Having a webcam is the first step toward getting caught masturbating."
Or Keanu Reeves on a bus.
All they have to do is call the camera a "security layer", and your duct tape violates ther DMCA. In theory.
Agreed...given the current state of digital music, the market is wide open, and seems to be heavily bent towards non-DRM'd music (iTunes, Amazon) anyway.
Not sure why this is news.
Now video, on the other hand...that's where the discussion belongs now.
I assume this was intended as a troll; your post is, however, the exact and perfect response to this situation. Cheers.
Or (gasp!) make change without a computron! I wonder if they even train that in grocery stores anymore...scary, indeed.
Actually, I just read that wiki (because I don't know that much about electricity and always wondered how a faraday cage worked), and it says said cage is ineffective against static electro-magnetic signals, like radios and, presumably, GPS. They actually use the interior of a car as an example of a de facto faraday cage. And it's in Wikipedia, so it has to be true.
Unless, of course, GPS signals are different than radio. Like I said: not my department...
I was thinking maybe a heavy metal shroud so it can't get a signal. Also, what is the counter-measure to ensure people aren't gaming the units? Pay a utility guy to come out and check your odometer and compare it to the GPS data? Gubmint efficiency at it's finest...of course, they'll have to levy new taxes to pay for the program overhead. And, of course, older cars will be outlawed.
Thirdly, I'm just certain that if the GPS breaks, the gubmint will fix it at no cost to you, the vehicle owner, and will provide you with a loaner vehicle.
Quick google shows knockoffs at under $20, and the Panasonic unit at $50 for the DMW-BCF10
I bet Sony is next. They love proprietary hardware and formats. Asspirates, all of them.
10 years on slashdot, and this is the first time I've actually spit food out laughing. Cheers.
Mine would be:
"Sure thing, boss!
satanrules.org. Check.
gayhornyandproud.com. Check
nambla.org. Check.
gnaa.org. Check.
ACLU.org. Double check.
EEOC.gov. Triple check. Read that one again, please. EEOC.GOV.
find-a-lawyer.com. Checkcheckcheck.
So, bi-weekly pay, right? Great. Where do I sign?"
re: ACH...meh...that's just how my brain works. I've worked in banking for over a decade and that's just what we call it. I spent all of four minutes writing the summary.
Good point...I assume China has some kind of big proxy, as opposed to DNS redirects.
Wait, is that why all of my .pl requests are going to .de all of a sudden? Spoooky....
Here I go exposing my weak grasp of the concept, but, for example, my company passes all network traffic through a proxy, and disallowed sites are blocked outright. Wouldn't it make more sense for Germany to force all ISPs doing business in their borders to do the same, as opposed to them trying to manage DNS traffic? I guess the breakdown in the concept would be: how big a server farm would the German government have to build to filter the 80 million users' traffic...
You've done it now...MeteorBoy will be paying you a visit soon. He's out shopping for tights this very minute.