>"Exceeded authorization" would be an interesting argument because computers always do what you tell them to do, not what you meant for them to do. >So while this company may not have intended to give authorization, they did in fact, give authorization to download the file. >At the very least, they did not deny the hackers the ability to download the file, >and were at no time confused about the identity of the hackers (representing public users).
You are highly confused about the meaning of "authorized."
Ever see a sign that says "authorized personnel only?" Put that in your pipe and smoke it for a while. It's the same situation. Just because it *can* be done, just because the webserver *will* do it, doesn't make it legal or authorized.
The maximum Pell grant is only $5500. This is peanuts.
At highly competitive institutions, the actual cost of educating per student approaches $90K. Usually around 1/3 to 1/2 of the students receive any financial aid. Less will even qualify, much less receive the full grant. Back-of-the-envelope, on average, we might expect the average per student grant to be around $1K. If there is a price-push-up, it's probably around or under $500.
Compared to Pell grants' ability to make education accessible, or to reduce indebtedness, for many other students in non-elite situations, I think that amounts to a hill of beans.
Government-subsidized and guaranteed loans, on the other hand... that's another mountain entirely.
>FunnyJunk may take the view that this action is deeply harmful to their reputation.
They may, but that has little to do with conflict of interest as it is defined in the Rules of Evidence or various Bar Association's ethics rules. (Note: I'm a member of a State Bar Assn.). (This post does not constitute legal advice or an attorney-client relationship, etc).
It seems like we have some hardness of head, here, the head being yours.
The question was not whether you could sue the TSA/telcos (successfully) (Note the TSA is probably covered by sovereign immunity, but that only goes so far).
The question was whether you could sue individual TSA agents (even if covered by some kind of immunity, which they're not likely to be) in their personal capacity. For instance, TSA gropes or harasses someone, this action is arguably outside their duties, therefore you sue them individually.
You clearly can, and if there were some kind of immunity protection, you can argue whether it applies. (But once again, there's not).
Suing an individual working for an ISP in the case of a warantless wiretap is another thing entirely, as they're *probably* acting under the clear direction of the government-- an entirely different thing. Still, I'd be willing to give it a shot if the circumstances where right.
It was the first article I found, and why we could usefully quibble back and forth for days, probably looking up more *actual sources* would be more useful. Especially useful would be any actual incidents, as they may tell us more than even expert speculation.
On oxygen duration, my recollection is that 1-2 minutes is low but common, however, I'm not seeing a source for that-- only thing that pops up in google at the moment is a system claimed for 15 minutes on recently fitted Tupolevs. Note that this system was evidently installed on a wide fleet of aircraft that "several years ago" did not have *any* passenger emergency systems.
(I'm fairly confident that I've read an incident report in the US where the PEOS ran out in under 3 minutes. Of course the pilots *should* be served by another system).
Yadda Yadda on the windows etc. I think they're likely to blow. Would be interesting to know if the Dreamliner, or any other craft with enlarged windows, has reinforced enough to prevent blowout. Plenty of redundancy on newer, larger craft but what about the ERJs I'll be on tomorrow?
Igniting fuel? The question, like with everything else, is the *odds*. (You've just given my gun-nut, chemistry & mech engineering friends an interesting weekend project).
It may be overall unlikely that a gun discharge will cause a catostrophic event, but that doesn't make it particularly safe. Any emergency landing with depressurization is inherently risky (today, at least, until we get auto-landing). Other events may be more risky. At what point do you consider this to become "Russian Roulette?" 2% risk of catastrophe? 5%? 10%? 16.6667% ?:)
My belief is that shooting on board a plane at 30K feet is probably pretty darn dangerous, all said. We can continue to kibbitz over the details, of course...
Original commenter seemed to mean "right-to-work" and to have used "at-will" as a substitute:); a common conflation, given that "at-will" has significant limitations and definitions in the common law and local law, which are confusing for many given that "at-will" is taken to mean "what I want (desire) at the moment" rather than "a matter of will (as self-determination)."
Presumably one can use supoena and discovery powers if there's an actual issue. In practice, most employers are probably aware enough of the issue-- and possibility of criminal prosecution-- not to violate the rules.
1) Hole in aluminum shell, likely no big deal. 2) Window will blow out, maybe sucking a person with it. Etc. Since air is limited in the backup system (1-2 minutes), it's a major emergency with a lot of risk. 3) You hit crucial cables or conduits, such as hydraulic controls. Minor to "bye, bye, birdie." 4) You ignite the fuel, either in the tank or the line. I hope you (and the idiot who dinged me a point) can figure out what happens in the next few seconds after that.
> Many employers have figured out how to intercept HTTPS connections and decode their content. >If you don't want your employer knowing all your secret information, such as account numbers, login ids, passwords, etc., you should never type any of these things on a work machine.
Or employers should be following the Electronic Data Rights and Privacy Acts, which prohibit them from viewing or using such information?
>why are you banking, shopping, or correspondence at work?
I don't know *where* you work, but in every *professional* workplace I've been at, this was considered normal. The same seems to go for all my peers. If you're in a non-professional position, or a position without leverage, that's another story. I can work work elsewhere, if you don't like that I'm doing what I need to do personally while I get my job done, goodbye.
Your sense of being a prole is a little annoying.:P
> It would be like making a NAU and then being surprised when Mexico ends up broke
Nice racist assumption there. Mexico is having an economic crisis because of specific governmental mistakes, nothing else; it has higher per capita GDP than the US just over a century ago.
You got that backwards, sherlock. It's the rich EU nations that provide the most services, most effectively. Thus they amortize and lower costs, increasing productivity. The poor nations made bad economic choices, like not dealing with poverty-- lowers production in the long run-- equals cycle of poverty.
2) In practice, any individual screener will care a *lot* about losing two days pay plus $250. If people make a practice of it, it'd be darn annoying, and any particular screener could lose their job if litigated repeatedly.
3) Of course, this side-thread started with a ridiculous hypothetical. Of course you can suponea TSA security video; it's done all the time. The idea that screeners will be given 'blanket immunity' is ridiculous-- public prosecutors don't even have that.
>You watch, Federal regulations will end up giving these guys immunity in exactly the same way the TSA has immunity.
Yeah, so?
I can still sue them in a "small claims" venue. They have to take at least two days off work, and likely hire a lawyer at a *minimum* of $75/hr or so, to claim immunity. Ie, fuck (with) them if you want to.
Slashdot Mirror
>"Exceeded authorization" would be an interesting argument because computers always do what you tell them to do, not what you meant for them to do.
>So while this company may not have intended to give authorization, they did in fact, give authorization to download the file.
>At the very least, they did not deny the hackers the ability to download the file,
>and were at no time confused about the identity of the hackers (representing public users).
You are highly confused about the meaning of "authorized."
Ever see a sign that says "authorized personnel only?" Put that in your pipe and smoke it for a while. It's the same situation. Just because it *can* be done, just because the webserver *will* do it, doesn't make it legal or authorized.
The maximum Pell grant is only $5500. This is peanuts.
At highly competitive institutions, the actual cost of educating per student approaches $90K. Usually around 1/3 to 1/2 of the students receive any financial aid. Less will even qualify, much less receive the full grant. Back-of-the-envelope, on average, we might expect the average per student grant to be around $1K. If there is a price-push-up, it's probably around or under $500.
Compared to Pell grants' ability to make education accessible, or to reduce indebtedness, for many other students in non-elite situations, I think that amounts to a hill of beans.
Government-subsidized and guaranteed loans, on the other hand... that's another mountain entirely.
>FunnyJunk may take the view that this action is deeply harmful to their reputation.
They may, but that has little to do with conflict of interest as it is defined in the Rules of Evidence or various Bar Association's ethics rules. (Note: I'm a member of a State Bar Assn.). (This post does not constitute legal advice or an attorney-client relationship, etc).
No. That's not a conflict of interest, that's a coincidence of interest.
It seems like we have some hardness of head, here, the head being yours.
The question was not whether you could sue the TSA/telcos (successfully) (Note the TSA is probably covered by sovereign immunity, but that only goes so far).
The question was whether you could sue individual TSA agents (even if covered by some kind of immunity, which they're not likely to be) in their personal capacity. For instance, TSA gropes or harasses someone, this action is arguably outside their duties, therefore you sue them individually.
You clearly can, and if there were some kind of immunity protection, you can argue whether it applies. (But once again, there's not).
Suing an individual working for an ISP in the case of a warantless wiretap is another thing entirely, as they're *probably* acting under the clear direction of the government-- an entirely different thing. Still, I'd be willing to give it a shot if the circumstances where right.
You mean your mom's bum? Wet, but not very tight.
Sheesh, move your level of discourse up a bit.
Without a scatter-chart distribution or such, that's pretty meaningless. Maybe you're the tax refuge for the 1%, eh? :)
Without the data, I don't know.
(P.S. Tennessee here, wouldn't have any of those super-tax states as a primary residence, either. I'm giving you a hard time).
It was the first article I found, and why we could usefully quibble back and forth for days, probably looking up more *actual sources* would be more useful. Especially useful would be any actual incidents, as they may tell us more than even expert speculation.
On oxygen duration, my recollection is that 1-2 minutes is low but common, however, I'm not seeing a source for that-- only thing that pops up in google at the moment is a system claimed for 15 minutes on recently fitted Tupolevs. Note that this system was evidently installed on a wide fleet of aircraft that "several years ago" did not have *any* passenger emergency systems.
http://www.basaaviation.com/peos_e.shtml
(I'm fairly confident that I've read an incident report in the US where the PEOS ran out in under 3 minutes. Of course the pilots *should* be served by another system).
Yadda Yadda on the windows etc. I think they're likely to blow. Would be interesting to know if the Dreamliner, or any other craft with enlarged windows, has reinforced enough to prevent blowout. Plenty of redundancy on newer, larger craft but what about the ERJs I'll be on tomorrow?
Igniting fuel? The question, like with everything else, is the *odds*. (You've just given my gun-nut, chemistry & mech engineering friends an interesting weekend project).
It may be overall unlikely that a gun discharge will cause a catostrophic event, but that doesn't make it particularly safe. Any emergency landing with depressurization is inherently risky (today, at least, until we get auto-landing). Other events may be more risky. At what point do you consider this to become "Russian Roulette?" 2% risk of catastrophe? 5%? 10%? 16.6667% ? :)
My belief is that shooting on board a plane at 30K feet is probably pretty darn dangerous, all said. We can continue to kibbitz over the details, of course ...
Original commenter seemed to mean "right-to-work" and to have used "at-will" as a substitute :); a common conflation, given that "at-will" has significant limitations and definitions in the common law and local law, which are confusing for many given that "at-will" is taken to mean "what I want (desire) at the moment" rather than "a matter of will (as self-determination)."
Presumably one can use supoena and discovery powers if there's an actual issue. In practice, most employers are probably aware enough of the issue-- and possibility of criminal prosecution-- not to violate the rules.
If you've got no skills and want to be paid slave wages, sure, Virginia all the way!
Since some *asshole* decided to -1 me on that, I decided to look it up:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/gun-on-plane.htm
In brief:
1) Hole in aluminum shell, likely no big deal.
2) Window will blow out, maybe sucking a person with it. Etc. Since air is limited in the backup system (1-2 minutes), it's a major emergency with a lot of risk.
3) You hit crucial cables or conduits, such as hydraulic controls. Minor to "bye, bye, birdie."
4) You ignite the fuel, either in the tank or the line. I hope you (and the idiot who dinged me a point) can figure out what happens in the next few seconds after that.
So no, I don't entirely agree with you :P
> At least where Im from, employment is an at-will contract.
You mean one of those Red states, where governors like Mr. Walker believe all employees are there to take it up the ass, I presume?
> Many employers have figured out how to intercept HTTPS connections and decode their content.
>If you don't want your employer knowing all your secret information, such as account numbers, login ids, passwords, etc., you should never type any of these things on a work machine.
Or employers should be following the Electronic Data Rights and Privacy Acts, which prohibit them from viewing or using such information?
>why are you banking, shopping, or correspondence at work?
I don't know *where* you work, but in every *professional* workplace I've been at, this was considered normal. The same seems to go for all my peers. If you're in a non-professional position, or a position without leverage, that's another story. I can work work elsewhere, if you don't like that I'm doing what I need to do personally while I get my job done, goodbye.
Your sense of being a prole is a little annoying. :P
> It would be like making a NAU and then being surprised when Mexico ends up broke
Nice racist assumption there. Mexico is having an economic crisis because of specific governmental mistakes, nothing else; it has higher per capita GDP than the US just over a century ago.
You got that backwards, sherlock. It's the rich EU nations that provide the most services, most effectively. Thus they amortize and lower costs, increasing productivity. The poor nations made bad economic choices, like not dealing with poverty-- lowers production in the long run-- equals cycle of poverty.
1) The question was whether you could sue them.
2) In practice, any individual screener will care a *lot* about losing two days pay plus $250. If people make a practice of it, it'd be darn annoying, and any particular screener could lose their job if litigated repeatedly.
3) Of course, this side-thread started with a ridiculous hypothetical. Of course you can suponea TSA security video; it's done all the time. The idea that screeners will be given 'blanket immunity' is ridiculous-- public prosecutors don't even have that.
4) Nice language, arschloch.
>that "invisible hand" you're thinking of?
It's groping me right now....
>Why waste taxpayers' money on TSA when we can spend double the tax money and get groped the same way by "private screeners"?
Hey, if I'm paying double... might as well asked to get groped twice, eh?
>you think you're going to be able to choose among competing pat-down companies?
Well, down at 6th and Embarcadero... :P
>You watch, Federal regulations will end up giving these guys immunity in exactly the same way the TSA has immunity.
Yeah, so?
I can still sue them in a "small claims" venue. They have to take at least two days off work, and likely hire a lawyer at a *minimum* of $75/hr or so, to claim immunity. Ie, fuck (with) them if you want to.
*wrong*
If they work for a private company, I can probably get them fired for incompetence or malfeasance.
If they work for the government, it's almost impossible to fire the bastards.
> and a $2 can of insulating foam can seal the hole in a moment or two anyway.
"Seriously," remind me to pack such a can on Monday, and see how far I get...
Yeah RIGGGHHHHTTT...
1) Not true. (Well, except that they carry regular ammo).
2) Unless you hit a window, etc.