I like to read PA from time to time. I could do without the sophomoric language that seems to be thrown in simply to 'identify with the youth', but sometimes I really find the comic funny. But the Child Play charity is primarily just a tax shelter for PA. They make a lot on money on advertising and PAX, and use CP to avoid (or at least defer) paying taxes on it. Not that that's anything unusual for a corporation, but I hate when companies portray their 'charitable giving' as some grand altruistic philanthropy, when it's just a way for them to dodge taxes.
If the laws that allowed this type of behavior went away, so would the giving.
You do not understand tax laws as well as you think you do if you believe the primary motivation for charitable contributions is to dodge taxes. It's a secondary motivation. You don't come out ahead.
Prosecutors, judges and juries all consider intent. Making a mistake is not the same as malicious action. True, there are times when it's difficult to tell. This isn't one of them.
Can't they just go in through the console and set the password?
Yes, they can. Except Childs had a bizarre policy of not saving the configuration on the devices, so resetting the passwords would have also required reconfiguration. And someone as bat-shit crazy as Childs appears to be probably didn't document the configurations.
I think you should re-examine what you think the right thing is, because it's different than what this guy's supervisors, his employers and, ultimately, the courts thought it was.
I've been following this case since it first hit/. and my impression of Childs is that he's an arrogant BOFH who forgot that it wasn't "his" system. He was pissed that they took his tinker toys away and gave it to what he considered inferior intellects. He was so sure he was smarter than everyone else that he bet his life, or at least up to five years of it, on it.
He hasn't been administering the network for a long time now and, holy shit, San Francisco isn't a smoking hole in the ground.
I think you wrote "news media" where you meant "sophomoric blog".
Unfortunately, Gizmodo has acted in, at best, unethical or, at worst, illegal behavior. It will be hard for me to squeeze out a tear when they feel the boot on their throat.
I can't figure out what law giz was supposed to have broken?
Phone wasn't stolen.
The guy who found it claims it wasn't stolen. I don't know if that's true or not. If I were him, I'd sure as hell claim I found it, too.
Apple apparently didn't want it when the person tried to return it. (which is there fault).
Even if they did as they claimed, it was the weakest possible attempt to return the phone. Pure sophistry.
They could have driven over to the Apple office. They could have phoned one of their marketing staff, who surely they have contact information for. They could have reported it to the police. They did none of these reasonable things because they knew Apple did indeed want the phone back, and they wanted their story.
Giz bought it to confirm what it was, because that's what they do.
And Apple made no effort to get it back.
Gizmoto received stolen property for their own financial gain. Do you think any reasonable person will agree that Apple did not want the phone back and that Gizmoto acted in an ethical manner?
Gizmoto is a blight on blog journalism and has been for some time. We're better off without them.
No cops investigating my neighbor's car that was stolen (in the ca bay area). These cops seem really motivated. Why? What's Jobs offering them that the average private citizen isn't?
The name and address of the the guy who bought their stolen property.
This douchebag was wandering around with a group of thirty or so people, drunkenly smacking people in the face with foam golf balls and then heckling them. I'm not sying the cops were right, they weren't, but this guy is no hero.
No.
Some other guy smacked one person in the face with a foam golf ball, by accident.
The police arrested the wrong guy by mistake, for which he performed community service even though he didn't commit any crime.
They also arrested one other person because he legally refused to disclose his ID or open his own wallet.
The real problem is the police lied and withheld evidence that didn't support their case. That cannot be tolerated, and for that he is a hero.
They may successfully argue that it is still legal. Their method is to call themselves with spoofed caller-id. The network fills in the name associated with the phone number and they build their database. Since they are only calling themselves and they know they are spoofing, they are not "intending to defraud or deceive" anyone.
Possibly, but I think most reasonable people would agree that using spoofing to trick the phone company into providing database information you shouldn't have falls under the "deceive" label.
From TFA: "DePetrillo used open-source PBX software to spoof the outgoing caller ID..."
Last week Congress passed the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2010 which will make it illegal "to cause any caller ID service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller ID information, with the intent to defraud or deceive."
Once that's signed into law they will be on very thin ice arguing that they did not intend to defraud or deceive when they spoof their caller ID to obtain information that they normally would not be able to access.
So you would say, then, that you can legally and without consequence change the passwords of all systems you have access to, provided doing so does not stop those systems from functioning normally in any way, then immediately quit your job and offer to sell those passwords back to your company?
Because your argument is that even if those passwords do belong to your employer, they can't force you to disclose them. Right?
I invite you to try this brilliant money-making idea and let me know how it works out.
I'll play your hypothetical. If your admin is following policy, however stupid or showing lack foresight, and you fire him for whatever reason, what makes you think he/she owes you anything? The person no longer works for you. The relationship is severed. Breaking off all lines of communication may be a jerk move, but it is not illegal.
I've said it more than once here, Child's is an ass. Certainly things should have been handled better BY ALL CONCERNED.
It is illegal. Passwords that protect company assets are intellectual property owned by the company. They don't belong to the employee any more than a company-issued laptop does.
But if I'm telling the truth, how is it perjury? I still don't understand how an innocent person can harm themselves by proclaiming their innocence.
If you're telling the truth, it cannot be perjury. Clearly we agree on this point.
Just because you believe you have done nothing wrong doesn't mean that necessarily matches the realities of law. If you aren't sure, it's better to be safe than sorry.
That was kind of my point. If I'm not lying, then how is perjury a problem? And if I AM lying, then I've committed a crime worse than perjury anyway.
You may be under the impression that the penalty for perjury is no big deal. In the US it's a felony and you can get five years of prison time if convicted.
Even though perjury is not often prosecuted, if you are concerned about incriminating yourself it is better to use your Constitutional right than it is to commit additional crimes.
They'll have to use evidence and facts instead of her own statements, which doesn't appear to make things too difficult for them.
While I agree, personally, if I was asked "Did you see any pictures of naked children," I would answer in the negative, not take the fifth. How complex can the ramifications of making that statement possibly be?
If it turns out my statement was false, and they charged me with giving false testimony... Well, I think that would sort of be the least of my problems at that point.
Going into particular detail is obviously something to avoid, but what can go wrong by saying "I did not do it?" What am I missing?
If a civil trial uncovers criminal conduct, the District Attorney certainly can proceed with a criminal trial, and any settlement made with the complainants doesn't somehow end any chance of criminal charges. For instance, the Catholic Church settling civil litigation with victims of abuse doesn't mean that priests who abused children can't be charged, or the potential that bishops and others in a position to hide such conduct couldn't be charged as accessories.
That's right, but in the context of the original post, you can't be granted criminal immunity by the lawyers suing you in civil court.
I don't think it's an attempt to imply guilt, but more show the cracks in the formerly unified stance of the board et al. Fifth Amendment invocation is different than "no comment," and it shows that some members are starting to think of themselves, rather than the message.
IANAL but I'm pretty sure "no comment" won't fly in a deposition. If you don't want to answer the questions the Fifth is the only method.
The guy pleads the fifth. No problem. Then grant him immunity from prosecution and take that off the table. Then let the dozens of civil suits eat him alive.
RTFAs. The case in question is a civil suit. I don't see any mention of criminal charges, but I do see mention of state legislation being introduced that would close the legal loophole the school district used.
Which will just make things worse for her when the logs are read & the forensics finished.
No, it will merely mean that she used her Constitutional right. She didn't want to give the opposing attorneys ammo they could shoot her with. They'll have to use evidence and facts instead of her own statements, which doesn't appear to make things too difficult for them.
You're wrists should not rest on the bottom of the computer when you're typing. The wrists should be straight, which means that only your fingers touch the machine.
I know that.
Assume the MBP is on a desk, about 3" away from the edge. With a MBP it's 10" from the edge of the desk to the home row on the keyboard, with a nearly 1" increase in height.
With your wrists straight and your forearms naturally resting on the edge of the desk, your wrists will be right on the edge of the laptop. On a MPB, that edge is sharper than any other laptop I've ever used.
The MPB would lose a tiny bit of sexiness when it's closed if that bottom edge were beveled, but it would be a hell of a lot more comfortable to type on.
Something you know (i.e. username or password) Something you have (i.e. security token) Something you are (i.e. fingerprint or retinal scan)
Guessing usernames is less than trivial. You get one every time you receive an email, in most cases.
Users use weak passwords because they come between them and what they want to accomplish, leaving them open to dictionary attacks. It's usually easier to get a password with social engineering anyway.
Adding a second factor significantly reduces the risks. I wish we had legislation requiring two-factor authentication for online banking, at a minimum.
I use a MBP daily and a big problem for me is the sharp edge on the bottom where your wrists naturally rest when you type. I've seen videos where guys have taken a Dremel to bevel the edge themselves. Anyone know if they fixed that in the new version?
Slashdot Mirror
I like to read PA from time to time. I could do without the sophomoric language that seems to be thrown in simply to 'identify with the youth', but sometimes I really find the comic funny. But the Child Play charity is primarily just a tax shelter for PA. They make a lot on money on advertising and PAX, and use CP to avoid (or at least defer) paying taxes on it. Not that that's anything unusual for a corporation, but I hate when companies portray their 'charitable giving' as some grand altruistic philanthropy, when it's just a way for them to dodge taxes.
If the laws that allowed this type of behavior went away, so would the giving.
You do not understand tax laws as well as you think you do if you believe the primary motivation for charitable contributions is to dodge taxes. It's a secondary motivation. You don't come out ahead.
Prosecutors, judges and juries all consider intent. Making a mistake is not the same as malicious action. True, there are times when it's difficult to tell. This isn't one of them.
Can't they just go in through the console and set the password?
Yes, they can. Except Childs had a bizarre policy of not saving the configuration on the devices, so resetting the passwords would have also required reconfiguration. And someone as bat-shit crazy as Childs appears to be probably didn't document the configurations.
Remind me never to do the right thing ever again.
I think you should re-examine what you think the right thing is, because it's different than what this guy's supervisors, his employers and, ultimately, the courts thought it was.
I've been following this case since it first hit /. and my impression of Childs is that he's an arrogant BOFH who forgot that it wasn't "his" system. He was pissed that they took his tinker toys away and gave it to what he considered inferior intellects. He was so sure he was smarter than everyone else that he bet his life, or at least up to five years of it, on it.
He hasn't been administering the network for a long time now and, holy shit, San Francisco isn't a smoking hole in the ground.
I think you wrote "news media" where you meant "sophomoric blog".
Unfortunately, Gizmodo has acted in, at best, unethical or, at worst, illegal behavior. It will be hard for me to squeeze out a tear when they feel the boot on their throat.
I can't figure out what law giz was supposed to have broken?
Phone wasn't stolen.
The guy who found it claims it wasn't stolen. I don't know if that's true or not. If I were him, I'd sure as hell claim I found it, too.
Apple apparently didn't want it when the person tried to return it. (which is there fault).
Even if they did as they claimed, it was the weakest possible attempt to return the phone. Pure sophistry.
They could have driven over to the Apple office. They could have phoned one of their marketing staff, who surely they have contact information for. They could have reported it to the police. They did none of these reasonable things because they knew Apple did indeed want the phone back, and they wanted their story.
Giz bought it to confirm what it was, because that's what they do.
And Apple made no effort to get it back.
Gizmoto received stolen property for their own financial gain. Do you think any reasonable person will agree that Apple did not want the phone back and that Gizmoto acted in an ethical manner?
Gizmoto is a blight on blog journalism and has been for some time. We're better off without them.
No cops investigating my neighbor's car that was stolen (in the ca bay area). These cops seem really motivated. Why? What's Jobs offering them that the average private citizen isn't?
The name and address of the the guy who bought their stolen property.
When one is presented with contradictory instructions, one chooses the instruction that fits what one wants to do.
This douchebag was wandering around with a group of thirty or so people, drunkenly smacking people in the face with foam golf balls and then heckling them. I'm not sying the cops were right, they weren't, but this guy is no hero.
No.
Some other guy smacked one person in the face with a foam golf ball, by accident.
The police arrested the wrong guy by mistake, for which he performed community service even though he didn't commit any crime.
They also arrested one other person because he legally refused to disclose his ID or open his own wallet.
The real problem is the police lied and withheld evidence that didn't support their case. That cannot be tolerated, and for that he is a hero.
They may successfully argue that it is still legal. Their method is to call themselves with spoofed caller-id. The network fills in the name associated with the phone number and they build their database. Since they are only calling themselves and they know they are spoofing, they are not "intending to defraud or deceive" anyone.
Possibly, but I think most reasonable people would agree that using spoofing to trick the phone company into providing database information you shouldn't have falls under the "deceive" label.
From TFA: "DePetrillo used open-source PBX software to spoof the outgoing caller ID..."
Last week Congress passed the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2010 which will make it illegal "to cause any caller ID service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller ID information, with the intent to defraud or deceive."
Once that's signed into law they will be on very thin ice arguing that they did not intend to defraud or deceive when they spoof their caller ID to obtain information that they normally would not be able to access.
So you would say, then, that you can legally and without consequence change the passwords of all systems you have access to, provided doing so does not stop those systems from functioning normally in any way, then immediately quit your job and offer to sell those passwords back to your company?
Because your argument is that even if those passwords do belong to your employer, they can't force you to disclose them. Right?
I invite you to try this brilliant money-making idea and let me know how it works out.
I'll play your hypothetical. If your admin is following policy, however stupid or showing lack foresight, and you fire him for whatever reason, what makes you think he/she owes you anything? The person no longer works for you. The relationship is severed. Breaking off all lines of communication may be a jerk move, but it is not illegal.
I've said it more than once here, Child's is an ass. Certainly things should have been handled better BY ALL CONCERNED.
It is illegal. Passwords that protect company assets are intellectual property owned by the company. They don't belong to the employee any more than a company-issued laptop does.
But if I'm telling the truth, how is it perjury? I still don't understand how an innocent person can harm themselves by proclaiming their innocence.
If you're telling the truth, it cannot be perjury. Clearly we agree on this point.
Just because you believe you have done nothing wrong doesn't mean that necessarily matches the realities of law. If you aren't sure, it's better to be safe than sorry.
That was kind of my point. If I'm not lying, then how is perjury a problem? And if I AM lying, then I've committed a crime worse than perjury anyway.
You may be under the impression that the penalty for perjury is no big deal. In the US it's a felony and you can get five years of prison time if convicted.
Even though perjury is not often prosecuted, if you are concerned about incriminating yourself it is better to use your Constitutional right than it is to commit additional crimes.
They'll have to use evidence and facts instead of her own statements, which doesn't appear to make things too difficult for them.
While I agree, personally, if I was asked "Did you see any pictures of naked children," I would answer in the negative, not take the fifth. How complex can the ramifications of making that statement possibly be?
If it turns out my statement was false, and they charged me with giving false testimony... Well, I think that would sort of be the least of my problems at that point.
Going into particular detail is obviously something to avoid, but what can go wrong by saying "I did not do it?" What am I missing?
Perjury. You're missing perjury.
If a civil trial uncovers criminal conduct, the District Attorney certainly can proceed with a criminal trial, and any settlement made with the complainants doesn't somehow end any chance of criminal charges. For instance, the Catholic Church settling civil litigation with victims of abuse doesn't mean that priests who abused children can't be charged, or the potential that bishops and others in a position to hide such conduct couldn't be charged as accessories.
That's right, but in the context of the original post, you can't be granted criminal immunity by the lawyers suing you in civil court.
I don't think it's an attempt to imply guilt, but more show the cracks in the formerly unified stance of the board et al. Fifth Amendment invocation is different than "no comment," and it shows that some members are starting to think of themselves, rather than the message.
IANAL but I'm pretty sure "no comment" won't fly in a deposition. If you don't want to answer the questions the Fifth is the only method.
The guy pleads the fifth. No problem. Then grant him immunity from prosecution and take that off the table. Then let the dozens of civil suits eat him alive.
RTFAs. The case in question is a civil suit. I don't see any mention of criminal charges, but I do see mention of state legislation being introduced that would close the legal loophole the school district used.
RTFA ... SHE invoked HER Fifth Amendment rights.
Which will just make things worse for her when the logs are read & the forensics finished.
No, it will merely mean that she used her Constitutional right. She didn't want to give the opposing attorneys ammo they could shoot her with. They'll have to use evidence and facts instead of her own statements, which doesn't appear to make things too difficult for them.
You're wrists should not rest on the bottom of the computer when you're typing. The wrists should be straight, which means that only your fingers touch the machine.
I know that.
Assume the MBP is on a desk, about 3" away from the edge. With a MBP it's 10" from the edge of the desk to the home row on the keyboard, with a nearly 1" increase in height.
With your wrists straight and your forearms naturally resting on the edge of the desk, your wrists will be right on the edge of the laptop. On a MPB, that edge is sharper than any other laptop I've ever used.
The MPB would lose a tiny bit of sexiness when it's closed if that bottom edge were beveled, but it would be a hell of a lot more comfortable to type on.
There are three possible authentication factors:
Something you know (i.e. username or password)
Something you have (i.e. security token)
Something you are (i.e. fingerprint or retinal scan)
Guessing usernames is less than trivial. You get one every time you receive an email, in most cases.
Users use weak passwords because they come between them and what they want to accomplish, leaving them open to dictionary attacks. It's usually easier to get a password with social engineering anyway.
Adding a second factor significantly reduces the risks. I wish we had legislation requiring two-factor authentication for online banking, at a minimum.
I use a MBP daily and a big problem for me is the sharp edge on the bottom where your wrists naturally rest when you type. I've seen videos where guys have taken a Dremel to bevel the edge themselves. Anyone know if they fixed that in the new version?
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/26/28-not-having-a-tv
It's nice that the summary failed to mention the first person to achieve this was Dr Fiona Wood from Perth.
Probably because the article doesn't mention it, either.