Yeah... I think their reason for wanting the e-mail account deactivated rather than the message deleted, must be that they expect to accidentally send more messages to it.
Perhaps the address was typo'd out in a contact list or something, and 30 people at random locations have the accidentally entered address now, and some time in the future the address is likely to get more of the same types of messages....
Deactivating the e-mail account is more convenient than fixing the secretary's typo or revisiting their policy of keeping confidential account info in Excel spreadsheets and e-mailing them around periodically, to share the details across the company....
For work-related e-mail. This doesn't necessarily mean they read all their email every day, or read every message that appears in the inbox.
I generally ignore messages from banks, most of them are unexpected, and they are generally phishing attempts.
Gmail.com is often used for personal accounts too (unless their gmail account was actually a Google Apps or gmail for domains account), businesses will usually want to have their own domain name. I frequently go 2 to 3 days without checking my personal e-mail accounts, unless i'm expecting something specific, but that doesn't mean they aren't important.
But the person whose email the information was sent to is not an innocent bystander, either. They had a chance to possibly avoid this action, but they chose to ignore the bank's secondary email.
How dare you say such a thing! There's no reason to believe they're anything other than innocent.
For all you or I know, the person didn't get the message from the bank.
They might not have even gotten the original message, either or both could have gone to the spam folder, or gotten deleted/filtered.
Some people don't log into their e-mail account and check for new mail all that often, so they might not have seen either message yet.
Some people receive so much mail, that they don't read every message, only mail from known contacts, other stuff gets filed in a 'to look at later, maybe' mailbox.
Also, even if they deleted the original message, or actually saw it, before receiving a message from the bank... it really doesn't obligate them to reply.
They are in effect a victim of the bank.
They are more than innocent bystander yes, they are the primary wronged party.
The only party we know that damage has really been done to.
Then there are the bank's customers... well, if the recipient deleted the message, they aren't in immediate danger, other than the fact that their bank seems to like transmitting their most confidential information over an insecure protocol, to random recipients on the internet, without protection.
They deserve to know about this, so they can switch banks.
This is not about starting a panic or not, they need this information so they can make an educated decision about who they can trust with their information.
Frankly, I think the US needs a constitutional ammendment that declares that matters of this nature must never be sealed by any court.
. Say, for instance, the judge ordered to bank to change the numbers of the 1,300 accounts, resulting in 1,300 people having to change their financial information on all documents relating to those accounts.
This is exactly what should happen. The information about all these accounts has been transmitted in cleartext across an untrusted network to a server that many entities may have access to.
The recipient may have even downloaded the message using POP3 or viewed it on the web, resulting in the message being transmitted in clear text even more times, and possibly stored in more places.
And who knows how many people have access to Gmails servers, or how many known and unknown temporary and permanent copies Google may have of the data in their servers' RAM, cache, and hard drives (even when you delete a file, parts of it are often still intact).
One thing that is certain is these 1300 people's information can no longer be considered secure, even after Google has deleted that e-mail account.
Honestly, Google and the user should appeal. The irreparable damage is completely unwarranted, the bank should instead be required to identify exactly which e-mail message that access should be blocked to, and only that message should be deleted from the account.
Sure Google is responsible, they can refuse the order, and let the user appeal it based in the irreparable damage turning off their e-mail account would do to them.
That's true... and piracy was even lower before the printing press, when books had to be copied by hand, television, and the telephone as well... I forgot to mention those particular gadgets that need to be banned...:)
On the other hand, so is walking around in a dazed state. We know sleep has some short-term negative consequences too, like reduced ability to concentrate; higher probability of mistakes, errors.
Many insects and other invertebrates enter an
inactive state at times, referred to as 'torpor'; commonly different types of insects are active during the day, or only active at night, and rest when inactive.
Some fish do also, e.g. salamanderfish when their pool dries out, the fish can be in hibernation for long periods of time.
Humans are an adaptable species. I think after 3 or 4 months of that, you would stop fearing the particular sounds your clock makes, and would then need a different kind of alarm clock.
This could be profitable to the alarm clock manufacturer though... think about it, they could sell clock tones.
Well, the size of your car is not unlimited, there are generally some highway regulations about the maximum your vehicle can weigh, and what its dimensions can be.
You can't even travel unlimited times... you eventually have to buy more gas (and therefore, pay more highway-related gas taxes)
When there was no such thing as records, cassettes, VHS tapes, DVDs, CDs, CD-Rs, no such thing as microphones, MP3 players, Radios, iPods, iTunes, online music stores, etc.
Sorry, CHAP authentication. You can store a plaintext password with PAP, but not CHAP.
The security tradeoff is this: for CHAP authentication to be performed, the server has to know what the plaintext password is exactly. For PAP authentication to be performed, the password is sent in the clear, and the server can store the password using a one-way hash.
The SERVER ISPs use a RADIUS server, and does not have full control over the authentication process. The hardware the users login to sends the RADIUS server the challenge response (which is a MD5 hash) and the challenge ID. The RADIUS server has no control of which authentication protocol was used: if CHAP was used, and a plaintext password is not available, the RADIUS server can only really reject the authentication (results in user can't connect).
For a CHAP authentication request:
The RADIUS server has to compute the MD5 hash of the plaintext password concatenated with the challenge response, and respond to the NAS (the network access server hardware) either YES (login ok), or No (bad login).
There is no 'use a different authentication protocol, please' option.
Typical NAS hardware will support CHAP, or the ISP will not have control over it (resold services are common).
If the NAS hardware supports CHAP, you're lost, because Windows will elect CHAP, it became the default at some point.
The Windows client operating system uses CHAP if the network access server supports it, the ISP operating the RADIUS server has no control of that, only the contractor/vendor providing the access service has control, and they generally use CHAP for security reasons.
Time to move your application to a Lotus Notes DB. At least that platform has handling for it.
Either design your web app so two users won't step on each other, or design in a way of dealing with it... such as comparing a user's changes from the original form, and submitting those, instead of "overwriting all other changes"
Or depending on the app... treat it like any version control system, keep both sets of conflicting changes, and let the users resolve them a bit later, after your app informs them of the conflict.
Why bother suing again? They can just have the judgement domesticated into whichever state he is located, as long as there's a judge's signature on it.
Of course Federal law trumps. But the Federal court in Missouri cannot write a Las Vegas land deed, and have it be marketable.
Real property in a state is special in some regards; it's a lot harder to seize than cash, or most types of assets. In order for the title to be clean and marketable, the former owner needs to have signed the transfer, or that there be a perfected lien and final judgement, to eliminate any possibility of them coming back later and claiming to be the rightful owner of the property.
What do you suppose happens if this judgement gets vacated, because the guy wins on appeal?
A prospective buyer of the property won't want to take the risk, that a vindicated defendant will now pursue legal action against them to get the buyer off "their" property.
The court has ordered that his assets be taken. But he is failing to comply with the court's order.
A district court in East Missouri has no ability to construct a title for a property in Las Vegas that will be recognized by the local government there. The law of real property and titles is a matter of state government, outside the federal jurisdiction.
The title has to be delivered to them, in accordance to the law of the state the property is in. The court has no ability to order people outside their jurisdiction to deliver title to the court.
Any more than they can order a Swiss bank to hand over the goods in an overseas account.
Slashdot Mirror
Can the user sue the court for abuse of process? Is it really the bank's fault that the Judge granted such an abusive order?
Yeah... I think their reason for wanting the e-mail account deactivated rather than the message deleted, must be that they expect to accidentally send more messages to it.
Perhaps the address was typo'd out in a contact list or something, and 30 people at random locations have the accidentally entered address now, and some time in the future the address is likely to get more of the same types of messages....
Deactivating the e-mail account is more convenient than fixing the secretary's typo or revisiting their policy of keeping confidential account info in Excel spreadsheets and e-mailing them around periodically, to share the details across the company....
For work-related e-mail. This doesn't necessarily mean they read all their email every day, or read every message that appears in the inbox.
I generally ignore messages from banks, most of them are unexpected, and they are generally phishing attempts.
Gmail.com is often used for personal accounts too (unless their gmail account was actually a Google Apps or gmail for domains account), businesses will usually want to have their own domain name. I frequently go 2 to 3 days without checking my personal e-mail accounts, unless i'm expecting something specific, but that doesn't mean they aren't important.
But the person whose email the information was sent to is not an innocent bystander, either. They had a chance to possibly avoid this action, but they chose to ignore the bank's secondary email.
How dare you say such a thing! There's no reason to believe they're anything other than innocent.
For all you or I know, the person didn't get the message from the bank. They might not have even gotten the original message, either or both could have gone to the spam folder, or gotten deleted/filtered.
Some people don't log into their e-mail account and check for new mail all that often, so they might not have seen either message yet.
Some people receive so much mail, that they don't read every message, only mail from known contacts, other stuff gets filed in a 'to look at later, maybe' mailbox.
Also, even if they deleted the original message, or actually saw it, before receiving a message from the bank... it really doesn't obligate them to reply. They are in effect a victim of the bank.
They are more than innocent bystander yes, they are the primary wronged party. The only party we know that damage has really been done to.
Then there are the bank's customers... well, if the recipient deleted the message, they aren't in immediate danger, other than the fact that their bank seems to like transmitting their most confidential information over an insecure protocol, to random recipients on the internet, without protection.
They deserve to know about this, so they can switch banks. This is not about starting a panic or not, they need this information so they can make an educated decision about who they can trust with their information.
Frankly, I think the US needs a constitutional ammendment that declares that matters of this nature must never be sealed by any court.
. Say, for instance, the judge ordered to bank to change the numbers of the 1,300 accounts, resulting in 1,300 people having to change their financial information on all documents relating to those accounts.
This is exactly what should happen. The information about all these accounts has been transmitted in cleartext across an untrusted network to a server that many entities may have access to.
The recipient may have even downloaded the message using POP3 or viewed it on the web, resulting in the message being transmitted in clear text even more times, and possibly stored in more places.
And who knows how many people have access to Gmails servers, or how many known and unknown temporary and permanent copies Google may have of the data in their servers' RAM, cache, and hard drives (even when you delete a file, parts of it are often still intact).
One thing that is certain is these 1300 people's information can no longer be considered secure, even after Google has deleted that e-mail account.
Honestly, Google and the user should appeal. The irreparable damage is completely unwarranted, the bank should instead be required to identify exactly which e-mail message that access should be blocked to, and only that message should be deleted from the account.
Sure Google is responsible, they can refuse the order, and let the user appeal it based in the irreparable damage turning off their e-mail account would do to them.
That's true... and piracy was even lower before the printing press, when books had to be copied by hand, television, and the telephone as well... I forgot to mention those particular gadgets that need to be banned... :)
Sleeping is basically a good chance to get eaten.
On the other hand, so is walking around in a dazed state. We know sleep has some short-term negative consequences too, like reduced ability to concentrate; higher probability of mistakes, errors.
That study was about people taking some caffeine, not people taking caffeine and avoiding any sleep for long periods of time.
Taking caffeine doesn't necessarily mean you deprive yourself of sleep. You can take caffeine at times and still sleep when it's normal to do so.
Many insects and other invertebrates enter an inactive state at times, referred to as 'torpor'; commonly different types of insects are active during the day, or only active at night, and rest when inactive.
Some fish do also, e.g. salamanderfish when their pool dries out, the fish can be in hibernation for long periods of time.
Humans are an adaptable species. I think after 3 or 4 months of that, you would stop fearing the particular sounds your clock makes, and would then need a different kind of alarm clock.
This could be profitable to the alarm clock manufacturer though... think about it, they could sell clock tones.
"Wake up to your alarm clock every time"
"Download a new clock tone every 2 weeks"
Get a random scary wake-up every morning
All mammals? So reptiles, birds, and insects don't sleep?
I would think there should be shorter term effects also.
Human lifespan used to be much shorter, it's only in the past few thousand years, that humans live past 30..
And most people reproduced long before the onset of diseases like Alzheimer's
I don't know... maybe without sleep, you'd get Alzheimer's at age 10.
Well, the size of your car is not unlimited, there are generally some highway regulations about the maximum your vehicle can weigh, and what its dimensions can be.
You can't even travel unlimited times... you eventually have to buy more gas (and therefore, pay more highway-related gas taxes)
When there was no such thing as records, cassettes, VHS tapes, DVDs, CDs, CD-Rs, no such thing as microphones, MP3 players, Radios, iPods, iTunes, online music stores, etc.
Ban all these things!
Who said anything about deploying Notes to client machines?
Notes is a framework that can be used for many types of custom applications, many of them browser-based.
Go Google it and educate yourself.
Sorry, CHAP authentication. You can store a plaintext password with PAP, but not CHAP. The security tradeoff is this: for CHAP authentication to be performed, the server has to know what the plaintext password is exactly. For PAP authentication to be performed, the password is sent in the clear, and the server can store the password using a one-way hash.
The SERVER ISPs use a RADIUS server, and does not have full control over the authentication process. The hardware the users login to sends the RADIUS server the challenge response (which is a MD5 hash) and the challenge ID. The RADIUS server has no control of which authentication protocol was used: if CHAP was used, and a plaintext password is not available, the RADIUS server can only really reject the authentication (results in user can't connect).
For a CHAP authentication request: The RADIUS server has to compute the MD5 hash of the plaintext password concatenated with the challenge response, and respond to the NAS (the network access server hardware) either YES (login ok), or No (bad login).
There is no 'use a different authentication protocol, please' option.
Typical NAS hardware will support CHAP, or the ISP will not have control over it (resold services are common). If the NAS hardware supports CHAP, you're lost, because Windows will elect CHAP, it became the default at some point.
The Windows client operating system uses CHAP if the network access server supports it, the ISP operating the RADIUS server has no control of that, only the contractor/vendor providing the access service has control, and they generally use CHAP for security reasons.
Time to move your application to a Lotus Notes DB. At least that platform has handling for it.
Either design your web app so two users won't step on each other, or design in a way of dealing with it... such as comparing a user's changes from the original form, and submitting those, instead of "overwriting all other changes"
Or depending on the app... treat it like any version control system, keep both sets of conflicting changes, and let the users resolve them a bit later, after your app informs them of the conflict.
Why bother suing again? They can just have the judgement domesticated into whichever state he is located, as long as there's a judge's signature on it.
Of course Federal law trumps. But the Federal court in Missouri cannot write a Las Vegas land deed, and have it be marketable.
Real property in a state is special in some regards; it's a lot harder to seize than cash, or most types of assets. In order for the title to be clean and marketable, the former owner needs to have signed the transfer, or that there be a perfected lien and final judgement, to eliminate any possibility of them coming back later and claiming to be the rightful owner of the property.
What do you suppose happens if this judgement gets vacated, because the guy wins on appeal?
A prospective buyer of the property won't want to take the risk, that a vindicated defendant will now pursue legal action against them to get the buyer off "their" property.
The court can TAKE HIS ASSETS.
The court has ordered that his assets be taken. But he is failing to comply with the court's order.
A district court in East Missouri has no ability to construct a title for a property in Las Vegas that will be recognized by the local government there. The law of real property and titles is a matter of state government, outside the federal jurisdiction.
The title has to be delivered to them, in accordance to the law of the state the property is in. The court has no ability to order people outside their jurisdiction to deliver title to the court.
Any more than they can order a Swiss bank to hand over the goods in an overseas account.
All the time -- most political speeches have a connection with reality:
They're the absolute opposite of reality. That's the connection they have with reality.
And I posted the wrong link, it's really maplight.org
Hint: this type of data mining is already happening.
Forget political speeches... how about campaign contributions and votes?
Actually, it's more like they took the car design, and changed the simple operations to make them terribly convoluted.
E.g. OLD: File>Save; OLD: "Turn key to turn off engine"
New: open hidden control panel compartment. Find lots of buttons.
Hunt for "Vehicle control" button. Press button, a second compartment opens.
Hunt for "Engine control" button. Press button, a third compartment opens.
Hunt through a few hundred buttons for the "turn off car" button.
It's not just that the UI is different, it's also that it's poorly organized, a lot more complicated to navigate than the old UI.
That's the sound of my enormous amount of respect for Nominum exploding and vaporized, due to one exclamation of sheer foolishness on their port.
It's ashame too... until this moment, they were overwhelmingly one of the most competent DNS service providers.
You know Microsoft's proprietary DNS implementations in Windows had just as many problems as the open source ones.
And the open source implementations can be patched and fixed much more easily.