It's like saying phone book publishers should have to give readers an opportunity to "opt in"
to have the phone number of any person who sells or will be willing to distribute porn listed in their phone book,
and the publisher has to omit phone numbers of any person selling/distributing porn otherwise.
And if someone who happens to have a number in the phone book happens to start selling porn?
The phone book publisher will be held liable (even though they were never told you could get porn by calling X person's phone number
and asking for it)!
No, that is obviously false. But it is easy to see that you MichaelKristopeit204 are less intelligent than the average 2 year old, especially in regards to proper capitalization.
facebook uses the display of the characters reading "face" ON EVERY SINGLE PAGE OF THEIR SERVICES.
False. They use the word mark "Facebook" to describe their services, but they have yet to use the word mark "Face", which is distinctive.
FB already have a registration and use of the Facebook word mark, and it is distinguishable and distinct from the word 'Face'.
Facetime was created in 1998, and Apple bought the code.
Poor Apple then, they didn't file for the trademark until June of 2010
Facebook applied for the 'Face' mark back in December 2005, and it took the USPTO 5 years (to May 2010), before the mark was published for opposition.
So Apple applying 5 months ago for Facetime.
The USPTO won't even start looking at their application until April 2011.
There is a chance that they might reject it.
Or there is a chance Apple might have a trademark in 2020, after Facebook's long past its prime, and nobody even really remembers either Facebook or the iPhone because they both went bust a long time ago and everyone's caught up $SHINY_NEW_TECHNOLOGY_FAD of 2020.
Facebook came first, but the mark that Facebook has used is Facebook
Facebook has never used the mark Face
by itself in commerce, as the name of a product, service, or anything like that, except when combined with the word Book.
So there is no confusion with any of Facebook's current services with Apple's FaceTime product, because Facetime is definitely not the company name or service mark that Facebook has been using for any of its products.
Matters would be different if Facebook had brought to market a bunch of different products and just the word 'Face' was used in conjunction with all of them
But as we stand now, Facebook's not called a service just 'Face', and other companies have already used the name Face and others have already used Book, in the same field as FB's trademark.
So FB doesn't have exclusive use.
They don't right now have a trademark, so they have nothing to enforce, and if they do obtain one -- there is a good chance they will not be able to get it to hold up
Apple already Applied for the Face Time trademark; although Facebook's application for "Face" in 2005 definitely predates Apple's filing in June 2010.
However, Facebook has not used the mark "Face" in commerce, they have only used it in conjunction with the word Book as in "Facebook"; they have to pay the fee first and have exclusive use of the actual mark "Face" in commerce within the field of their trademark, before the trademark can become enforceable.
This could be difficult as Apple has prior use of the mark 'Face' in commerce, in conjunction with 'Time' 'Facetime', within the same field Facebook is applying.
In other words: not only has Facebook not used the mark in commerce, they don't even have exclusive use of marks that look like that, because there are a lot of other products starting with the mark "Face" .
These circumstances could make it difficult or impossible for Facebook to effectively enforce its mark in the courtroom.
No. "Face time" is an idiom that means "speak directly to someone who is in front of you." Eg, "I need to go spend some face time with my accountant." It has nothing to do with Facebook at all.
The name Facebook could be a play on the concept of 'Face time' however
Apparently my idea for a goofy social networking site based on Face Painting is a non-starter though
Or a downloader/backdoor will have to fit on the card to allow a remote load of any code that can't be stored on the PROM.
This solution is defeated by a proper IOMMU.
My assumption is the 'remote loaded code' would be loaded into NIC RAM managed by the NIC firmware, not host memory managed by the CPU and IOMMU hardware
Many NICs have some memory space for transmit and receive buffers, and multiple I/O queues,
no doubt some of that would be unused and could be repurposed by a hacked firmware, without the host's knowledge or involvement
They posted the full story on their own site, that's not remotely close to fair-use.
The amount of the work used is only one of the factors that can be used to help determine if a use of a work
is fair use protected by the first amendment of the constitution.
There are cases where copying the entire work has been ruled to be fair use
Some other important factors are why was the copy made... and what is the impact on the market for the work?
If an article was made freely available online, then it is going to be hard to argue a repost was unfair just because it contained the whole work,
if the work was not being sold in the first place
They'd have to fence in the entire rail structure or bury it underground and monitor the ground above it so that someone doesn't dig down and drop large rocks on the rail.
Last I checked, fences are pretty easy to defeat. If you have explosives, carrying around some tin snips, or a smaller charge to punch a hole in a fence shouldn't be much an issue
They would actually need to have guards watching the entire length of the track and able to get to the person very quickly,
or stop the train immediately, if any tampering were seen.
No offense, but this is completely speculative, and seems to ignore the fact that these body scanners can cost up to and exceeding $100,000 [epic.org], and that's not even including the costs of hiring and maintaining staff to manage the machines.
Massively high prices to milk the cash cow that far exceed the actual cost to the manufacture, I am sure.
If there is demand, the manufacturers are sure to come up with models for 'train stations' and other places, priced appropriately,
special deal, or whatever. As long as they can segment the market to make sure airports will be unable to use their 'train station' units,
either due to a software license restriction, or some other artificial crippling of device functionality to make it useless for airports,
but inexpensive enough to use at train stations.
Janet Napolitano says tourists will continue to look for US vulnerabilities, making tighter security standards necessary. '[Tourorrists] are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through,'... 'I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime.' Napolitano added she hoped the US could get to a place in the future where Americans would not have to be as guarded against tourists as they are and that she was actively promoting research into the psychology of how a tourist becomes radicalized. 'The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of tourists and the risk of commoners having a vacation without getting anal probed?'.... 'I think having a better understanding of what causes someone to become a tourist will be helpful.'"
Some people like their personal devices and prefer them over a device the company would be willing to provide their employees with.
Possibly the device provides additional functions that are useful to the person but the business sees as not worth the cost.
In this case, people should be able to strike a deal with the business, but it may involve the person making certain concessions for security reasons
Still in place in Clackamas and Multnomah counties, haven't dialed 9-1-1 in Washington for years.
Hm.. kind of hard to know for sure, most people don't have a reason to call 911 every day.
Not like you can just call in to "test out 911".
It'd be like what happened to
this guy or worse,
when I tried testing 911 once by calling the number and saying to the operator "This is just a test, I am making changes to my phone system at home and want to make sure I can still call 911", things went wrong. The operator just asked if I was OK and after confirming it, the call ended. To my surprise about 5 minutes after I found myself explaining the joys of VOIP telephony to local cops and next morning to my neighbors:) 911 operator called the cops to check things out nevertheless and 3 cars came with all the police fanfare. Cops said to never make such calls again.
Never mind the juice glasses, think about the bottles of wine and liqueur from duty free stores (within the secure zone), and the shards of sharp glass they can make.
Someone can get bottles of wine containing flammable Alcohol into the secure zone. Do they run every drop of fluid through a spectrometer?
How can it possibly be known that an insider working with bad guys hasn't secretly replaced the Wine in one of the bottles with a liquid explosive material?
Just for the sake of argument.....
"My Exchange server, my rules"
Things get a little more complicated.
You want to use your own hip, new shiny personal phone, in lieu of employment requirement of carrying the 3 year old refurbished hand-me-down company phone we were going to issue you, which you don't like for some reason?
Fine, but you must get interoffice e-mail on it.
To get office e-mail on it, you must connect to the Exchange server.
As a condition for doing so, you follow my rules.
One of my rules says that if you leave, are fired, or want to stop using your personal phone for e-mail, at any time, your phone must be wiped, I will remote wipe if possible, but upon request you must immediately stop using the phone, not copy any data off of it, provide it to me within 1 business day, so I can ensure that it is properly wiped, after which time I will return it to you, within 2 business days.
Now, if I make a person wanting to use their phone sign a statement to that effect, doesn't that bind them to my rules, even though it's "their phone" ?:)
"Wipe Device" is no security strategy for preventing an employee from keeping data.
It solves a specific problem, and dealing with employees that are leaving is not the problem it solves.
The problem it addresses is destroying data on a stolen device, before the thief can have time to disseminate it.
An employee that owns the device and has had the stuff on it, has already had plenty of time to disseminate it and make any extra immune-to-wipe-feature copies that they had wanted.
This is why most companies use virtual desktop such on VPNs when remote computers log in. The actual data can be accessed without being permanently stored on the remote PC which is logging in.
Nevertheless, the user might store any data they want by taking screenshots,
taking hard copies, transferring files, or by using copy and paste.
I suppose if they wanted to capture everything, they could get a converter box to hook their monitor into, with dual outputs.... one output to the computer display,
and another output to a High-Def TV recording device, e.g. firewire connection to a HD camcorder.
Presumably, a high resolution recording of whatever was displayed on the monitor could be used (given sufficient time) to reconstruct any data that had been viewed later
No. SSNs and credit cards can be cancelled and replaced.
Precious photos can never be replaced.
Your enterprise has no authority to judge that.
Sometimes a photograph can be worth a lot of money, also,
especially if the person is a graphic artist for another job,
certain photos can easily be worth $10k or more.
I suppose it depends on the work environment, but we regularly deal with sensitive customer information (i.e. financials, SSNs, credit cards, etc) and this sort of information ends up in internal emails.
Sending an e-mail containing someone's credit card details should be a criminal offense.
Anyone who e-mailed SSNs internally should go to jail for doing so.
Shoddy security practices by people in an organization in no way justify the destruction of someone else's property.
E-mailing sensitive financial details of customers is an utterly reckless practice, and trying to "wipe a terminated employee's phone" doesn't address the security issue at all.
Carrying around such sensitive information as CCs/financials on a mobile device without strong cryptography and basic security is at diametrical opposite to safeguarding corporate data.
And frankly, the organization deserves what they get if they fail to prohibit the practice or fail to promptly terminate employees who adopt a practice of doing so.
The simple fact is anything truly critical such as that should not be available on anyone's Blackberry, iPhone, or any device taken off of company property, aside from encrypted formats where the decryption keys are not available on the device without a secure authorization process.
But wiping everything is just inane. There is absolutely no reason to wipe pictures, personal contacts, emails, etc. This is software we're talking about. Just wipe the account(s) in question.
Indeed, there is not.
This is like allowing employees to work from home, using file sharing software, for example, a shared drive and Briefcase / sync software.
And the manufacturer of the file syncing software secretly including some obscure 'wipe device data' function, and the manufacturer of the computer (for some reason) respecting it and tying the function to a self-destruct option, so the employer can right click the employee's computer in a list, click "Wipe Data", and the employee's personal computer/laptop hard drive is wiped next time the software syncs up.
And justifying it by saying sensitive files are stored in the briefcase / file sync directory.
I do believe if the employer actually did this, the sysadmin could face criminal charges, by the way.
I do not see how "wiping an iPhone" without owner permission is any different.
The Exchange admin abused an IT management feature to gain access to the iPhone and destroy information on it.
This could fall under computer fraud and abuse, unauthorized access, and using unauthorized access to destroy data.
I suppose it could be a while, however, before a terminated employee can prove the employer caused at least $5000 in damages to them through the unauthorized access, and get federal prosecutors interested.
There should absolutely, absolutely be a way to wipe a corporate account off a phone. That data is the property of the corporation.
It's more complicated than that... some things in a corporate account are clearly related to the business and company property.
Some things are not. For example, take a calendar.... people will put things like business meetings in their calendar, but Employees are also expected to put personal things in their corporate calendar, for example, they will be busy with personal thing X, so their calendar reflects it. The calendar is dual purpose.
It is That person's organizational tool, on their personal device, and their calendar is used by the enterprise too.
So the calendar doesn't really belong solely to either... it belongs both to the person and the enterprise, neither really has a right to destroy the other's copy.
Not always. Some people also would want their personal data wiped if a phone is stolen or lost.
If this is a personal phone, this should be doable as a decision made by the user validated by the carrier or Apple, not a decision the enterprise can make.
Probably the best way would be to print a "wipe code" inside the battery cover, or some unique number, that the user and Apple would have access to, and would be required to authenticate the wipe.
If the phone is company property... fine... the company gets the wipe code on the invoice, when buying the phone, if not, then they cannot wipe it unless the owner provides it
I am unhappy with both of these options... as a mail system sysadmin, I see this as an accident waiting to happen, and I want to know what I can do to make it impossible for this function to be used by me or any other mail server operator, so that users cannot blame us, should their personal phone get bricked, on accident or otherwise.
Apple should provide some mechanism to make 'device wipe' impossible.
Employees should backup their own data. If they are uncomfortable with the possibility of Employer wiping their personal computer, then they should not connect their personal computer to work email [or Outlook Web Access].
If necessary, the spammers could just have the card do NAT so you get blamed for the spam.
Interestingly.. they wouldn't even have to do that much. Just provide the spammer a 'magic packet' to tell the NIC to start replacing and forwarding either all packets, or packets destined to certain ports to the spammer's destination IP.
Dumb rewriting is fine as long as the spammer gets the packet otherwise unchanged, as the spammer can implement all the 'NAT logic' in their own software.
In fact, since nobody really practices BCP38, the compromised NIC doesn't even need to send the spam packets, the spammer can take care of that by sending the spam packets themselves and applying the compromised host's IP address as the source IP on the packets -- all the spammer needs is the return traffic.
And the only reason the spammer needs the return traffic, is you can't in general use someone else's source IP address to successfully establish TCP connections without it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like saying phone book publishers should have to give readers an opportunity to "opt in" to have the phone number of any person who sells or will be willing to distribute porn listed in their phone book, and the publisher has to omit phone numbers of any person selling/distributing porn otherwise.
And if someone who happens to have a number in the phone book happens to start selling porn? The phone book publisher will be held liable (even though they were never told you could get porn by calling X person's phone number and asking for it)!
you're an idiot.
No, that is obviously false. But it is easy to see that you MichaelKristopeit204 are less intelligent than the average 2 year old, especially in regards to proper capitalization.
facebook uses the display of the characters reading "face" ON EVERY SINGLE PAGE OF THEIR SERVICES.
False. They use the word mark "Facebook" to describe their services, but they have yet to use the word mark "Face", which is distinctive.
FB already have a registration and use of the Facebook word mark, and it is distinguishable and distinct from the word 'Face'.
Facetime was created in 1998, and Apple bought the code.
Poor Apple then, they didn't file for the trademark until June of 2010
Facebook applied for the 'Face' mark back in December 2005, and it took the USPTO 5 years (to May 2010), before the mark was published for opposition.
So Apple applying 5 months ago for Facetime. The USPTO won't even start looking at their application until April 2011.
There is a chance that they might reject it. Or there is a chance Apple might have a trademark in 2020, after Facebook's long past its prime, and nobody even really remembers either Facebook or the iPhone because they both went bust a long time ago and everyone's caught up $SHINY_NEW_TECHNOLOGY_FAD of 2020.
facebook came first...
Facebook came first, but the mark that Facebook has used is Facebook
Facebook has never used the mark Face by itself in commerce, as the name of a product, service, or anything like that, except when combined with the word Book.
So there is no confusion with any of Facebook's current services with Apple's FaceTime product, because Facetime is definitely not the company name or service mark that Facebook has been using for any of its products.
Matters would be different if Facebook had brought to market a bunch of different products and just the word 'Face' was used in conjunction with all of them
But as we stand now, Facebook's not called a service just 'Face', and other companies have already used the name Face and others have already used Book, in the same field as FB's trademark.
So FB doesn't have exclusive use. They don't right now have a trademark, so they have nothing to enforce, and if they do obtain one -- there is a good chance they will not be able to get it to hold up
Does the ruling include Facetime?
Apple already Applied for the Face Time trademark; although Facebook's application for "Face" in 2005 definitely predates Apple's filing in June 2010.
However, Facebook has not used the mark "Face" in commerce, they have only used it in conjunction with the word Book as in "Facebook"; they have to pay the fee first and have exclusive use of the actual mark "Face" in commerce within the field of their trademark, before the trademark can become enforceable.
This could be difficult as Apple has prior use of the mark 'Face' in commerce, in conjunction with 'Time' 'Facetime', within the same field Facebook is applying. In other words: not only has Facebook not used the mark in commerce, they don't even have exclusive use of marks that look like that, because there are a lot of other products starting with the mark "Face" .
These circumstances could make it difficult or impossible for Facebook to effectively enforce its mark in the courtroom.
No. "Face time" is an idiom that means "speak directly to someone who is in front of you." Eg, "I need to go spend some face time with my accountant." It has nothing to do with Facebook at all.
The name Facebook could be a play on the concept of 'Face time' however
Apparently my idea for a goofy social networking site based on Face Painting is a non-starter though
Or a downloader/backdoor will have to fit on the card to allow a remote load of any code that can't be stored on the PROM.
This solution is defeated by a proper IOMMU.
My assumption is the 'remote loaded code' would be loaded into NIC RAM managed by the NIC firmware, not host memory managed by the CPU and IOMMU hardware
Many NICs have some memory space for transmit and receive buffers, and multiple I/O queues, no doubt some of that would be unused and could be repurposed by a hacked firmware, without the host's knowledge or involvement
They posted the full story on their own site, that's not remotely close to fair-use.
The amount of the work used is only one of the factors that can be used to help determine if a use of a work is fair use protected by the first amendment of the constitution.
There are cases where copying the entire work has been ruled to be fair use
Some other important factors are why was the copy made... and what is the impact on the market for the work?
If an article was made freely available online, then it is going to be hard to argue a repost was unfair just because it contained the whole work, if the work was not being sold in the first place
they'd need someone to watch, and press the 'boom' button after the sweeper has passed.
or they'd need to bury their charges, arrange them to be undetectable by the sweeper, and use a simple circuit called a counter
They'd have to fence in the entire rail structure or bury it underground and monitor the ground above it so that someone doesn't dig down and drop large rocks on the rail.
Last I checked, fences are pretty easy to defeat. If you have explosives, carrying around some tin snips, or a smaller charge to punch a hole in a fence shouldn't be much an issue
They would actually need to have guards watching the entire length of the track and able to get to the person very quickly, or stop the train immediately, if any tampering were seen.
No offense, but this is completely speculative, and seems to ignore the fact that these body scanners can cost up to and exceeding $100,000 [epic.org], and that's not even including the costs of hiring and maintaining staff to manage the machines.
Massively high prices to milk the cash cow that far exceed the actual cost to the manufacture, I am sure.
If there is demand, the manufacturers are sure to come up with models for 'train stations' and other places, priced appropriately, special deal, or whatever. As long as they can segment the market to make sure airports will be unable to use their 'train station' units, either due to a software license restriction, or some other artificial crippling of device functionality to make it useless for airports, but inexpensive enough to use at train stations.
Janet Napolitano says tourists will continue to look for US vulnerabilities, making tighter security standards necessary. '[Tourorrists] are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through,' ... 'I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime.' Napolitano added she hoped the US could get to a place in the future where Americans would not have to be as guarded against tourists as they are and that she was actively promoting research into the psychology of how a tourist becomes radicalized. 'The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of tourists and the risk of commoners having a vacation without getting anal probed?' .... 'I think having a better understanding of what causes someone to become a tourist will be helpful.'"
There, fixed it for you.
No reason to connect with personal devices.
Some people like their personal devices and prefer them over a device the company would be willing to provide their employees with. Possibly the device provides additional functions that are useful to the person but the business sees as not worth the cost.
In this case, people should be able to strike a deal with the business, but it may involve the person making certain concessions for security reasons
Still in place in Clackamas and Multnomah counties, haven't dialed 9-1-1 in Washington for years.
Hm.. kind of hard to know for sure, most people don't have a reason to call 911 every day.
Not like you can just call in to "test out 911". It'd be like what happened to this guy or worse,
And that's why you see stuff like need 5 years for low level jobs as well as the need B.S / PHD for lot's of tech jobs that don't need one.
I've seen better.... Web Programmers wanted... Requirement: 20 Years experience developing software using ASP.NET and Visual C#
Never mind the juice glasses, think about the bottles of wine and liqueur from duty free stores (within the secure zone), and the shards of sharp glass they can make.
Someone can get bottles of wine containing flammable Alcohol into the secure zone. Do they run every drop of fluid through a spectrometer?
How can it possibly be known that an insider working with bad guys hasn't secretly replaced the Wine in one of the bottles with a liquid explosive material?
Their device, their rules. My device, my rules.
Just for the sake of argument..... "My Exchange server, my rules"
Things get a little more complicated.
You want to use your own hip, new shiny personal phone, in lieu of employment requirement of carrying the 3 year old refurbished hand-me-down company phone we were going to issue you, which you don't like for some reason? Fine, but you must get interoffice e-mail on it.
To get office e-mail on it, you must connect to the Exchange server.
As a condition for doing so, you follow my rules.
One of my rules says that if you leave, are fired, or want to stop using your personal phone for e-mail, at any time, your phone must be wiped, I will remote wipe if possible, but upon request you must immediately stop using the phone, not copy any data off of it, provide it to me within 1 business day, so I can ensure that it is properly wiped, after which time I will return it to you, within 2 business days.
Now, if I make a person wanting to use their phone sign a statement to that effect, doesn't that bind them to my rules, even though it's "their phone" ? :)
"Wipe Device" is no security strategy for preventing an employee from keeping data. It solves a specific problem, and dealing with employees that are leaving is not the problem it solves. The problem it addresses is destroying data on a stolen device, before the thief can have time to disseminate it. An employee that owns the device and has had the stuff on it, has already had plenty of time to disseminate it and make any extra immune-to-wipe-feature copies that they had wanted.
This is why most companies use virtual desktop such on VPNs when remote computers log in. The actual data can be accessed without being permanently stored on the remote PC which is logging in.
Nevertheless, the user might store any data they want by taking screenshots, taking hard copies, transferring files, or by using copy and paste.
I suppose if they wanted to capture everything, they could get a converter box to hook their monitor into, with dual outputs.... one output to the computer display, and another output to a High-Def TV recording device, e.g. firewire connection to a HD camcorder.
Presumably, a high resolution recording of whatever was displayed on the monitor could be used (given sufficient time) to reconstruct any data that had been viewed later
2. SSN, financials, credit cards > photos
No. SSNs and credit cards can be cancelled and replaced. Precious photos can never be replaced. Your enterprise has no authority to judge that.
Sometimes a photograph can be worth a lot of money, also, especially if the person is a graphic artist for another job, certain photos can easily be worth $10k or more.
I suppose it depends on the work environment, but we regularly deal with sensitive customer information (i.e. financials, SSNs, credit cards, etc) and this sort of information ends up in internal emails.
Sending an e-mail containing someone's credit card details should be a criminal offense. Anyone who e-mailed SSNs internally should go to jail for doing so. Shoddy security practices by people in an organization in no way justify the destruction of someone else's property.
E-mailing sensitive financial details of customers is an utterly reckless practice, and trying to "wipe a terminated employee's phone" doesn't address the security issue at all.
Carrying around such sensitive information as CCs/financials on a mobile device without strong cryptography and basic security is at diametrical opposite to safeguarding corporate data. And frankly, the organization deserves what they get if they fail to prohibit the practice or fail to promptly terminate employees who adopt a practice of doing so.
The simple fact is anything truly critical such as that should not be available on anyone's Blackberry, iPhone, or any device taken off of company property, aside from encrypted formats where the decryption keys are not available on the device without a secure authorization process.
But wiping everything is just inane. There is absolutely no reason to wipe pictures, personal contacts, emails, etc. This is software we're talking about. Just wipe the account(s) in question.
Indeed, there is not.
This is like allowing employees to work from home, using file sharing software, for example, a shared drive and Briefcase / sync software. And the manufacturer of the file syncing software secretly including some obscure 'wipe device data' function, and the manufacturer of the computer (for some reason) respecting it and tying the function to a self-destruct option, so the employer can right click the employee's computer in a list, click "Wipe Data", and the employee's personal computer/laptop hard drive is wiped next time the software syncs up.
And justifying it by saying sensitive files are stored in the briefcase / file sync directory. I do believe if the employer actually did this, the sysadmin could face criminal charges, by the way.
I do not see how "wiping an iPhone" without owner permission is any different.
The Exchange admin abused an IT management feature to gain access to the iPhone and destroy information on it. This could fall under computer fraud and abuse, unauthorized access, and using unauthorized access to destroy data. I suppose it could be a while, however, before a terminated employee can prove the employer caused at least $5000 in damages to them through the unauthorized access, and get federal prosecutors interested.
There should absolutely, absolutely be a way to wipe a corporate account off a phone. That data is the property of the corporation.
It's more complicated than that... some things in a corporate account are clearly related to the business and company property. Some things are not. For example, take a calendar.... people will put things like business meetings in their calendar, but Employees are also expected to put personal things in their corporate calendar, for example, they will be busy with personal thing X, so their calendar reflects it. The calendar is dual purpose. It is That person's organizational tool, on their personal device, and their calendar is used by the enterprise too.
So the calendar doesn't really belong solely to either... it belongs both to the person and the enterprise, neither really has a right to destroy the other's copy.
Not always. Some people also would want their personal data wiped if a phone is stolen or lost.
If this is a personal phone, this should be doable as a decision made by the user validated by the carrier or Apple, not a decision the enterprise can make.
Probably the best way would be to print a "wipe code" inside the battery cover, or some unique number, that the user and Apple would have access to, and would be required to authenticate the wipe.
If the phone is company property... fine... the company gets the wipe code on the invoice, when buying the phone, if not, then they cannot wipe it unless the owner provides it
I am unhappy with both of these options... as a mail system sysadmin, I see this as an accident waiting to happen, and I want to know what I can do to make it impossible for this function to be used by me or any other mail server operator, so that users cannot blame us, should their personal phone get bricked, on accident or otherwise.
Apple should provide some mechanism to make 'device wipe' impossible.
Employees should backup their own data. If they are uncomfortable with the possibility of Employer wiping their personal computer, then they should not connect their personal computer to work email [or Outlook Web Access].
There, fixed it for you
If necessary, the spammers could just have the card do NAT so you get blamed for the spam.
Interestingly.. they wouldn't even have to do that much. Just provide the spammer a 'magic packet' to tell the NIC to start replacing and forwarding either all packets, or packets destined to certain ports to the spammer's destination IP.
Dumb rewriting is fine as long as the spammer gets the packet otherwise unchanged, as the spammer can implement all the 'NAT logic' in their own software.
In fact, since nobody really practices BCP38, the compromised NIC doesn't even need to send the spam packets, the spammer can take care of that by sending the spam packets themselves and applying the compromised host's IP address as the source IP on the packets -- all the spammer needs is the return traffic.
And the only reason the spammer needs the return traffic, is you can't in general use someone else's source IP address to successfully establish TCP connections without it.