"I manage the network for a defense contractor that needs a cloud-based storage service and am having a lot of trouble finding an appropriate solution that meets our requirements. We are currently using DropBox and I am terrified of seeing another data leak like last year. Some of our data is classified under International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) which requires that all data to remain inside the US, including any cloud storage or redundant backups.
If you want Dropbox's functionality; I suggest you use Dropbox.
However: DO NOT ALLOW ANY CONTENT REGULATED UNDER ITAR into a cloud service
Second: DO NOT ALLOW ANY CLASSIFIED MATERIALS into a cloud service
One possibility would be to implement Active Directory Rights Management Service (RMS) inside your organization.
And set a policy that All sensitive documents must be composed using Microsoft Office, AND Users must encrypt all sensitive documents before saving them
If your clients are running recent versions of Windows; there are some interesting things you can do to make sure that files get saved get encrypted.
You can also use various third party scanning and Data Leak Prevention software products to help you with making sure RMS rights templates get applied to existing documents' that got stored on enterprise users' workstations
If the file is RMS protected; in theory, Dropbox doesn't matter as much, because if someone accidentally places a file there; the file was encrypted, anyhow --- it can't be decrypted, unless your RMS server says it's OKAY and issues out a license to open the document (which contains the necessary crypto keys).
You just need to be very firm about your security labelling and encryption policies for sensitive documents.
You realize these clusters are locked, right? Not that it's fool proof, but if they're going to be picking a mailbox lock, they're just as likely to drive through a neighborhood and collect mail from unlocked boxes.
Locks, except very strong ones are not a very good crime or vandalism deterrant.
People fear getting caught in the act. If there's a cluster of mailboxes outside where many people are looking -- people are going to try, and probably will succeed.
It’s a crime that’s happened not once, not twice, but eight times in several Natomas subdivisions. “The whole thing was broken into,? said George Minor, president of his homeowners’ association. ?It looked like they took a crowbar, or something, and just pried open all the boxes.” Mike Wiley’s cluster mailbox was hit by a thief this past summer.
No. The "locks" are just for show. They are easily defeated. Also, there have been many cases where mail was stolen from cluster mailboxes, because the delivery man forgot to relock the back of the unit once they were done --- so anyone could just open it right up and get at all the mail
They're not going to be spending any real resources on the locks or security design for these; any reasonable level of basic security would be very expensive -- to do so would defeat the whole point of "saving money".
15 seconds with a crowbar, and you have all the mail.
It predates USB being a standard for charging devices. It used to need to support FireWire in addition to USB.
That makes sense for the iPhone 3/4 connector.
It's totally not an excuse for the iPhone 5 lightning adapter.... although, it does have the advantage that you can plug in the spade in either orientation, and it just works: with USB, you have to look at the adapter and make sure the orientation is correct.
if they were dong profit otherwise heavily they could loan to get over this period(yes it's stupid to loan to put in a fund you own but...).
IF allowed to do so by the government, they could sell bonds, or borrow money, to cover short-term cash needs.
In accounting terms, they would still have to book the situation as a loss: in fact, a greater loss compounded by increasing interest payments.
I don't think the issue is the USPS being not creditworthy to get a loan --- the full faith and credit of the US government is behind them.
Congress has to authorize such a thing.
Or you could charge extra for rural delivery to make up for the higher costs. If you want to live in a rural area, that's fine, but why should others subsidize your lifestyle? Some people *have* to live in rural areas (farmers, for example), so they can charge the city folk more to make up for their unsubsidized cost of living.
Fine, as long as they make sure the sender is the one paying, and they provide a rate book, or some mechanism, so you can still know the required postage when sending mail.
It would probably be easier if they just went ahead and raised postage to $1, and came up with a policy dishonoring all stamps previously sold.
That makes absolutely no sense. The efficiency gained for the post office by having one person hit 10 homes in a single stop is far greater than that of loss of efficiency for you hitting one mail box each day on your way home from work/school/store.
And what about for all the people who farm their own food, never leave their homes and don't own a car, so they sure are not going to drive 20 miles to get mail?
Not to mention the people that would be legitimately concerned about the safety risk of stopping their car in the middle of the street out somewhere in front of their neighborhood to go access a 'centralized mail pedestal', at risk of potential mugging or harassment, due to frequently visiting a potentially dangerous public place that only occasionally has anyone else around.
Then there are the security risks of an unmonitored shared mailbox cluster, possibly being a place where mail could be stolen from, since it's not anywhere near someone's house....
Once you price spammers and old people out of the market, the postal service collapses in upon itself.
There's plenty of money to be made competing with UPS and FedEx, but you can't set the price higher then them, unless you deliver a higher quality service with more benefits for sender and recipient.
You are part of the reason home delivery is so expensive. If you don't want to drive miles to a mailbox cluster, the USPS doesn't want to drive those miles to deliver a bulk mail envelope that only earned them 25 cents.
It was the USPS choice to only charger 25 cents for it, when they should have charged more.
I rather they charge the sender a buck, and stick it in my door.
I don't want junk mail someone was willing to pay 25 cents for
In fact.... I think a deserve a 75% commission from the postage, if the content is advertising that does not benefit me in any way whatsoever;
the only benefits are to the company sending the ad, and the post office for collecting rent from them.
The US government is artificially creating a loss, by forcing the USPS to pay out 75 years worth of pension funds out of their account;
in other words, they are being required to pay the pension of future employees that haven't even been born at.
Sounds like basically an income steal to me!
If the USPS were a private company, their management would not be taking such ridiculous actions.
Basically, the USPS is being mismanaged, and then they expect the customers to pay for the mismanagement by accepting a lower quality service.
Which is only maybe even possible due to laws prohibiting competing against the USPS.
Whether any of those places actually USE mail afterwards is another point, but you have to get through that barrier. Mail has always been the "default" communication, guaranteed to make it to the recipient.
So don't cancel mail service.... just check it about once every 4 to 6 weeks; let it pile up in the mean time.
So if I get source code and make a program from it, I'm free to do with the program whatever I want, unrestricted by copyright?
There is an argument that the executable code is covered by the copyright too as a compact representation of its source code.
If that's the case, No.
However, you are free to compile and use the source code, AND do what you like with the output of the program, unrestricted by the copyright --- assuming the programs' input does not contain something copyrighted, and the output is not the program's code.
E.g. You can't necessarily use blogging software however you want, because the output may be HTML with separately copyrightable elements such as images and Javascript files produced verbatim from resource files provided by the author of the software.
For example, you using GCC to compile your own HelloWorld.c doesn't automatically make the resultant HelloWorld executable GPL
Correct... and even if HelloWorld.c is under the GPL, your output executable, is not necessarily covered by the copyright.
The argument could be made that the HelloWorld executable is a derivative work of the HelloWorld.c file.
And thus coverable by the copyright to the extent that 'The executable is not merely a machine with a useful purpose'.
To the same point, the argument could be made that the Executable contains various bits of code from the compiler and system libraries, therefore, it could be a derivative work of those too.
But the argument can also be made that the executable is not a derivative work of either of those, the executable is the mere result of using the published interfaces and applying a recipe to produce a result;
and to the extent the program is a machine, and not a creative expression --- not subject to any copyright.
Well... that particular piece would not appear to have any useful function. Therefore, it could be deemed completely an aesthetic piece, so it would be copyrightable..... and indeed, the author would have the exclusive right to authorize the display of the work in a public place; with the possible exception of someone displaying a legal copy case for certain purposes such as advertising that the copy is for sale by showing it in a store display case with a price tag.
What is that "creative expression" that you are talking about?
Creative expression is a reference to the author's aesthetic. That is, it is the application of a creative element that is unique. For example; a picture of a subject taken with unique lighting conditions, carefully selected background, with certain framing, dressed up a certain way by the photographer --- all the elements combined form the author's unique creative expression, which is done solely for aesthetic purposes; another photographer would have made some different aesthetic choices, because no two artists are identical.
The same goes for pictoral works in a sequence of animation and audiovisual works. No two different animators really have the same aesthetics; if someone else makes an animated mouse, and the face looks just like Mickey's, then it would be obvious that it's a copy.
Perhaps a citaton of the law would be helpful, see USC 102
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.....
“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article./BLOCKQUOTE
Obviously.... but this wouldn't even have become an issue if the designer hadn't made available a digital copy of their design.
I equated this earlier to someone sharing a copy of their brownie recipe with you, and then getting upset, when they learned you had cooked some brownies up according to the recipe and sold them at a bake sale.
Just like with a cookbook; if you become a legal possessor of a design or instructions on how to make something --- then you are legally allowed to make and sell the thing, and copyright doesn't stop you.
Not only does copyright not stop you, but the copyright holder is restrained by the courts from preventing you.
They could in some cases stop you by introducing a creative expression of solely aesthetic value (that you would be required to remove, to avoid infringement); or they could patent it.
But that's IT. To say you never owned a legal copy of the work --- is equivalent to saying the designer never made a copy available to you in the first place - in which case the whole idea of any restrictions is moot.
Of course, you could still legally produce the thing by reverse engineering the design, from a copy the designer printed, and print more of your own....
But very few people like to be careful and rigorous with their analytics, to ensure they only use their analytics to say things the analytics actually say ---- and not things that are a result of taking statistical shortcuts, or allowing their personal biases to influence the message..... one of the strongest biases of all being the idea that the analytics observed actually say anything useful [or reliable] at all
Or Mickey Mouse; what is it other than an idea of a certain kind of an anthropomorphic rodent?
That's just it... the idea is not protected. Only their creative expression.
You are free to make as many anthropomorphic rodents as you like, as long as you do not copy theirs.
It is best if you can prove you never had access to any Mickey mouse material, especially in the years you were working on yours, to avoid frivolous accusations of non-literal copying; which essentially means copying the work, but rephrasing it or tweaking the copy to make the copy appear to be different..
What's copyrighted is the idea, not the physical manifestation or "input".
No... you cannot copyright an idea. What gets copyrighted is the creative expression, once you have fixed it in a tangible form.
Copyright does not restrict the use of the tangible form. It restricts the rights of other people to make copies of that creative expression on their own
tangible form, and prepare derivative works, or redistribute.
The digital files created by a designer would most certainly involve some creative expression and be subject to some copyright.
The mechanical objects that you can print, would not necessarily be copyrightable.
For example: if the 3D object is a gear, then the function dictates the form, and therefore, it is non-copyrightable.
Even if the digital file was copyrightable; once you have printed it, you have a non-copyrightable object.
Slashdot Mirror
"I manage the network for a defense contractor that needs a cloud-based storage service and am having a lot of trouble finding an appropriate solution that meets our requirements. We are currently using DropBox and I am terrified of seeing another data leak like last year. Some of our data is classified under International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) which requires that all data to remain inside the US, including any cloud storage or redundant backups.
If you want Dropbox's functionality; I suggest you use Dropbox.
However: DO NOT ALLOW ANY CONTENT REGULATED UNDER ITAR into a cloud service
Second: DO NOT ALLOW ANY CLASSIFIED MATERIALS into a cloud service
One possibility would be to implement Active Directory Rights Management Service (RMS) inside your organization. And set a policy that All sensitive documents must be composed using Microsoft Office, AND Users must encrypt all sensitive documents before saving them
If your clients are running recent versions of Windows; there are some interesting things you can do to make sure that files get saved get encrypted. You can also use various third party scanning and Data Leak Prevention software products to help you with making sure RMS rights templates get applied to existing documents' that got stored on enterprise users' workstations
If the file is RMS protected; in theory, Dropbox doesn't matter as much, because if someone accidentally places a file there; the file was encrypted, anyhow --- it can't be decrypted, unless your RMS server says it's OKAY and issues out a license to open the document (which contains the necessary crypto keys).
You just need to be very firm about your security labelling and encryption policies for sensitive documents.
You realize these clusters are locked, right? Not that it's fool proof, but if they're going to be picking a mailbox lock, they're just as likely to drive through a neighborhood and collect mail from unlocked boxes.
Locks, except very strong ones are not a very good crime or vandalism deterrant. People fear getting caught in the act. If there's a cluster of mailboxes outside where many people are looking -- people are going to try, and probably will succeed.
Perhaps you should see this article: Thieves Target Several Cluster Mailboxes In Natomas Subdivisions:
No. The "locks" are just for show. They are easily defeated. Also, there have been many cases where mail was stolen from cluster mailboxes, because the delivery man forgot to relock the back of the unit once they were done --- so anyone could just open it right up and get at all the mail
They're not going to be spending any real resources on the locks or security design for these; any reasonable level of basic security would be very expensive -- to do so would defeat the whole point of "saving money".
15 seconds with a crowbar, and you have all the mail.
It predates USB being a standard for charging devices. It used to need to support FireWire in addition to USB.
That makes sense for the iPhone 3/4 connector.
It's totally not an excuse for the iPhone 5 lightning adapter.... although, it does have the advantage that you can plug in the spade in either orientation, and it just works: with USB, you have to look at the adapter and make sure the orientation is correct.
if they were dong profit otherwise heavily they could loan to get over this period(yes it's stupid to loan to put in a fund you own but...).
IF allowed to do so by the government, they could sell bonds, or borrow money, to cover short-term cash needs. In accounting terms, they would still have to book the situation as a loss: in fact, a greater loss compounded by increasing interest payments.
I don't think the issue is the USPS being not creditworthy to get a loan --- the full faith and credit of the US government is behind them. Congress has to authorize such a thing.
Crash safety hazard. Please see about proper mailbox support
The USPS has to go to each address each day, to see if there's any mail to be picked up.
They don't have to. They could maintain a database of requested pickups, and provide an 800 number that you have to call, if you want a pickup.
Or you could charge extra for rural delivery to make up for the higher costs. If you want to live in a rural area, that's fine, but why should others subsidize your lifestyle? Some people *have* to live in rural areas (farmers, for example), so they can charge the city folk more to make up for their unsubsidized cost of living.
Fine, as long as they make sure the sender is the one paying, and they provide a rate book, or some mechanism, so you can still know the required postage when sending mail.
It would probably be easier if they just went ahead and raised postage to $1, and came up with a policy dishonoring all stamps previously sold.
That makes absolutely no sense. The efficiency gained for the post office by having one person hit 10 homes in a single stop is far greater than that of loss of efficiency for you hitting one mail box each day on your way home from work/school/store.
And what about for all the people who farm their own food, never leave their homes and don't own a car, so they sure are not going to drive 20 miles to get mail?
Not to mention the people that would be legitimately concerned about the safety risk of stopping their car in the middle of the street out somewhere in front of their neighborhood to go access a 'centralized mail pedestal', at risk of potential mugging or harassment, due to frequently visiting a potentially dangerous public place that only occasionally has anyone else around.
Then there are the security risks of an unmonitored shared mailbox cluster, possibly being a place where mail could be stolen from, since it's not anywhere near someone's house....
Once you price spammers and old people out of the market, the postal service collapses in upon itself.
There's plenty of money to be made competing with UPS and FedEx, but you can't set the price higher then them, unless you deliver a higher quality service with more benefits for sender and recipient.
You are part of the reason home delivery is so expensive. If you don't want to drive miles to a mailbox cluster, the USPS doesn't want to drive those miles to deliver a bulk mail envelope that only earned them 25 cents.
It was the USPS choice to only charger 25 cents for it, when they should have charged more.
I rather they charge the sender a buck, and stick it in my door. I don't want junk mail someone was willing to pay 25 cents for
In fact.... I think a deserve a 75% commission from the postage, if the content is advertising that does not benefit me in any way whatsoever; the only benefits are to the company sending the ad, and the post office for collecting rent from them.
The US government is artificially creating a loss, by forcing the USPS to pay out 75 years worth of pension funds out of their account; in other words, they are being required to pay the pension of future employees that haven't even been born at.
Sounds like basically an income steal to me!
If the USPS were a private company, their management would not be taking such ridiculous actions.
Basically, the USPS is being mismanaged, and then they expect the customers to pay for the mismanagement by accepting a lower quality service.
Which is only maybe even possible due to laws prohibiting competing against the USPS.
Whether any of those places actually USE mail afterwards is another point, but you have to get through that barrier. Mail has always been the "default" communication, guaranteed to make it to the recipient.
So don't cancel mail service.... just check it about once every 4 to 6 weeks; let it pile up in the mean time.
So if I get source code and make a program from it, I'm free to do with the program whatever I want, unrestricted by copyright?
There is an argument that the executable code is covered by the copyright too as a compact representation of its source code. If that's the case, No.
However, you are free to compile and use the source code, AND do what you like with the output of the program, unrestricted by the copyright --- assuming the programs' input does not contain something copyrighted, and the output is not the program's code.
E.g. You can't necessarily use blogging software however you want, because the output may be HTML with separately copyrightable elements such as images and Javascript files produced verbatim from resource files provided by the author of the software.
For example, you using GCC to compile your own HelloWorld.c doesn't automatically make the resultant HelloWorld executable GPL
Correct... and even if HelloWorld.c is under the GPL, your output executable, is not necessarily covered by the copyright.
The argument could be made that the HelloWorld executable is a derivative work of the HelloWorld.c file. And thus coverable by the copyright to the extent that 'The executable is not merely a machine with a useful purpose'.
To the same point, the argument could be made that the Executable contains various bits of code from the compiler and system libraries, therefore, it could be a derivative work of those too.
But the argument can also be made that the executable is not a derivative work of either of those, the executable is the mere result of using the published interfaces and applying a recipe to produce a result; and to the extent the program is a machine, and not a creative expression --- not subject to any copyright.
Here's a link with a picture.
Well... that particular piece would not appear to have any useful function. Therefore, it could be deemed completely an aesthetic piece, so it would be copyrightable..... and indeed, the author would have the exclusive right to authorize the display of the work in a public place; with the possible exception of someone displaying a legal copy case for certain purposes such as advertising that the copy is for sale by showing it in a store display case with a price tag.
What is that "creative expression" that you are talking about?
Creative expression is a reference to the author's aesthetic. That is, it is the application of a creative element that is unique. For example; a picture of a subject taken with unique lighting conditions, carefully selected background, with certain framing, dressed up a certain way by the photographer --- all the elements combined form the author's unique creative expression, which is done solely for aesthetic purposes; another photographer would have made some different aesthetic choices, because no two artists are identical.
The same goes for pictoral works in a sequence of animation and audiovisual works. No two different animators really have the same aesthetics; if someone else makes an animated mouse, and the face looks just like Mickey's, then it would be obvious that it's a copy.
Perhaps a citaton of the law would be helpful, see USC 102
17 USC 101 Definitions
:
Obviously.... but this wouldn't even have become an issue if the designer hadn't made available a digital copy of their design.
I equated this earlier to someone sharing a copy of their brownie recipe with you, and then getting upset, when they learned you had cooked some brownies up according to the recipe and sold them at a bake sale.
Just like with a cookbook; if you become a legal possessor of a design or instructions on how to make something --- then you are legally allowed to make and sell the thing, and copyright doesn't stop you.
Not only does copyright not stop you, but the copyright holder is restrained by the courts from preventing you.
They could in some cases stop you by introducing a creative expression of solely aesthetic value (that you would be required to remove, to avoid infringement); or they could patent it.
But that's IT. To say you never owned a legal copy of the work --- is equivalent to saying the designer never made a copy available to you in the first place - in which case the whole idea of any restrictions is moot.
Of course, you could still legally produce the thing by reverse engineering the design, from a copy the designer printed, and print more of your own....
But very few people like to be careful and rigorous with their analytics, to ensure they only use their analytics to say things the analytics actually say ---- and not things that are a result of taking statistical shortcuts, or allowing their personal biases to influence the message..... one of the strongest biases of all being the idea that the analytics observed actually say anything useful [or reliable] at all
.
Why? If I design something, I don't want you to print that without paying me.
This is the equivalent to the argument; "Here, I'll let you see all my recipes, and you can even save my cookbook to your computer."
But don't you dare think about making blueberry muffins and having a bake sale; I will demand a cut from every muffin you bake using my design!
Or Mickey Mouse; what is it other than an idea of a certain kind of an anthropomorphic rodent?
That's just it... the idea is not protected. Only their creative expression.
You are free to make as many anthropomorphic rodents as you like, as long as you do not copy theirs.
It is best if you can prove you never had access to any Mickey mouse material, especially in the years you were working on yours, to avoid frivolous accusations of non-literal copying; which essentially means copying the work, but rephrasing it or tweaking the copy to make the copy appear to be different..
What's copyrighted is the idea, not the physical manifestation or "input".
No... you cannot copyright an idea. What gets copyrighted is the creative expression, once you have fixed it in a tangible form.
Copyright does not restrict the use of the tangible form. It restricts the rights of other people to make copies of that creative expression on their own tangible form, and prepare derivative works, or redistribute.
The digital files created by a designer would most certainly involve some creative expression and be subject to some copyright.
The mechanical objects that you can print, would not necessarily be copyrightable.
For example: if the 3D object is a gear, then the function dictates the form, and therefore, it is non-copyrightable.
Even if the digital file was copyrightable; once you have printed it, you have a non-copyrightable object.
They can only be patented.
Therefore; whatever the license terms that apply to the design files --- they do not apply to the physical object you can print using them.
In as much as the object itself is not copyrightable.
Something a bit darker than Sauron; unfortunately... no hobbit can take down this evil with just a ring and the fires of hell....
Make sure you specify 1% of the gross, not net. Otherwise with Hollywood accounting you will somehow wind up owing THEM money.
The greater of 1% of the absolute value of total expenditures And 1% of the absolute value of net earnings.
Aircraft automatically get that status. Sea ships or U-Boats have to be designated under the protection of military remains act
Still... this act doesn't exclude archaeology; it just means that special restrictions and permitting requirements apply.