Sure there is... CHAP authentication cannot be done with a hash (as opposed to the older PAP authentication which could).
The ISP has to store the plaintext password.
The advantage of CHAP is the password isn't exposed in cleartext on the wire. The disadvantage is the password has to be kept in cleartext in the password database.
You can blame Microsoft for changing the default from PAP to CHAP, because "it's more secure".
Nevermind, that "the wire" is a telco circuit, and the chance of an adversary leeching your password off of it is miniscule, compared to an adversary somehow leeching it off your ISP.
It's surely a selling point for DLP software.. but before something like this happened, I doubt IT could justify paying the extremely high price for dataleak prevention.
Yeah... you can't do it if your clients connect using PAP authentication.
This doesn't explain why the heck the info was in a spreadsheet however.
Maybe it was intended for support staff... still, it raises the question.. how the heck are you gonna keep a spreadsheet up-to-date?
If it was on a shared folder, I can't imagine any reason in hell it could have wound up attached to an e-mail, except an employee did something extremely evil.....
Well, Copyright law is how they charge. Federal law (G)
It's the same thing for authors. If you sell 2 million e-books, it doesn't consume any more resources than if you sold 20. With exception of the negligible bandwidth cost (which is incurred by your out-of-state datacenters anyways).
Now if you sell those inside your state, those are all subject to state taxes.
If you sell all those outside your state, you're still subject to your state's taxes.
But: If your subsidiary sells all those outside your state. You don't pay, because your subsidiary is not you.
1: His wife's assets may be up for grabs, sure. But not the assets of Shannon Neiswonger as Trustor.
Her ownership interest in the trust may be up for grabs.
2: If the court wanted to, it could seize those assets. It would simply have to show that the dude was leaving as Trustor after the asset freeze.
The dude never left as trustor, he claimed to have resigned as trustee. The court stated due to the terms of their specific trust, any of the trustors have a right to remove property from it, even if they aren't trustee, and they expect him to exercise that right.
They also indicate his resignation as trustee is invalid, because it wasn't properly recorded. It means he still has full power of trustee, and he is ordered to exercise that full power as trustee (if necessary) in order to deliver the title.
3: I still fail to see how "suspect activities" and a violation of an injunction result in a man sitting in jail for a non-criminal defense.
The offense is criminal contempt. Refusal to take the physical actions required to obey a court order is a crime.
Microsoft has to pay other taxes, just not this one, to Washington. There are a slew of taxes that corporations have to pay.
The act of licensing a product doesn't actually use state resources.
If Microsoft licenses 2,000,000 $250 copies of Vista, it doesn't utilize any more state resources than if they had licensed 200,000 copies of vista, or if they had licensed 2,000,000 $100 copies instead.
You might think it implies they hire more support people in Washington, and thus further use state infrastructure... but it doesn't, thanks to outsourcing and call centers in India.
And most copies of Windows licensed are OEM, and volume licensed, which doesn't generate additional support demands.
Washington State has no control of Nevada tax law, and they don't have jurisdiction over Microsoft's subsidiary that handles licensing.
Microsoft surely pays taxes to Nevada for this, but they are less than the taxes would be if they did the product licensing in Washington, and
thus had to pay Washington's exhorbitant licensing taxes.
This guy has a history, he is no first-time offender. I have no sympathy for a guy who ripped off people for $11 million in 1996, plea bargained for some $3 million. Had more money overseas (out of US gov't reach) than he reported, and then basically violated an injunction against him and did it all over again...
And his reason for not turning over title is listed in the Memorandum
It is clear that since the inception of the present lawsuit regarding defendantâ(TM)s contempt of
the 1997 Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction, the defendant has
engaged in suspect activities regarding this property, including but not limited to, an attempt to
sell the property in April 2007 (after the original Civil Contempt Order was entered invoking an asset freeze). He now contends that the property is held in trust (the SRN Trust), he has resigned
as a trustee under the trust, and that his wife Shannon is the only one as Trustor that can convey
(or must also convey) title to the Verlaine Property.
The manner is which the defendant âoeresignedâ his trusteeship under the SRN Trust is
highly suspect, and by all accounts, ineffectual. According to the express terms of the SRN
Trust, trustees have the power to act individually or unilaterally to sell and/or exchange all trust
Neiswonger executed a brief written statement resigning as trustee of the SRN Trust.
However, contrary to Nevada law, this statement of resignation was not notarized nor recorded at
the time it was executed. Instead, it wasnâ(TM)t until April 2008 (after the Civil Contempt Order was entered...
Furthermore, the
only affirmation as to when this statement of resignation was purportedly signed by defendant is
his wife Shannonâ(TM)s notarized affidavit
Assuming arguendo that defendant Neiswonger did in fact resign as a trustee under the
SRN trust, he never resigned as a Trustor under the SRN Trust. As a Trustor under the SRN
Trust, the defendant can remove the Verlaine Property from the Trust on his own by signing a
document to that effect.
Once the defendant or the defendant and his wife revoke the SRN Trust (as Trustor or
Trustors), the Verlaine Property becomes community property. As community property in
4
Nevada, it can be transferred to the Receiver, even though Shannon Neiswonger is not a party to
this lawsuit. âoeNevada is a community property state, and under the law of Nevada, `community
property is subject to a spouseâ(TM)s debt irrespective of whether both spouses were a party to the
action.â(TM)â FTC v. Neiswonger, et. al., - F.3d....
The action was brought about by the FTC. No asset protection can really save you from the FTC, if they are of sufficient value, unless that asset protection includes you having your ass and your property in another country, in unmarked bills, or at least outside the hands of any US-based organizations that can be ordered to hand it over (by US courts).
The ruling says he's required to deliver marketable title.
That explicitly means he is required to use all resources available to him to pay off any mortgages on the property and have any encumberances by other parties released, or face contempt.
It suggests the court believes he has the resources available, or some liens/encumberances on the property are created by organizations under his control.
IOW, Since he ran an asset-protection business, the court may believe he has intentionally structured ownership of the property in attempt to protect it from the court.
Well, the judge can definitely side against him in extreme cases like this one.
Asset protection is okay, until you try and use it as a shield to break the law, at which points, the courts will pwn you.
17 year olds are not really the target for these devices. I would consider it extremely brazen and overprotective to try and track a 17 yr old.
If you feel she can't be left to wander at 17, you or she has a serious problem, that needs to be solved, but cannot be solved just by tracking her for a year... on her 18th birthday, at most a year, she reaches the age of majority with all legal rights and responsibilities of any adult, and you can no longer be tracking her or compel her to do things, except if she makes a decision that she'll allow it, as an adult, she can change her mind at any time, also.
That is, unless you're planning on starting a guardianship action and claiming she has an incapacity, with extraordinary and overwhelming evidence of a mental problem, necessitating a guardian to be appointed, that is...
Naw, i'd send them to slashdot.org. They'd stay up all night reading and posting comments, and forget all about their loneliness.
Also, it's pretty hard to sneak out of the house, when there's a burglar alarm armed, cameras covering all the exits, the yard + street, and they're in a 2nd floor room, overlooking the back yard, w/ motion-sensors in the backyard that trigger lights and alarms...
Moreso, if the door out their bedroom is physically locked.
Ok, maybe that's a little extreme... but you get the idea.. if you're serious about it, you can make sneaking out pretty darn hard.
Of course you can control a teenager... they require transportation to get anywhere; transportation you don't have to provide. They require things like phones, computers, or internet connections you provide to be able to communicate with their friends, a nice warm cozy bed with TV, you don't have to provide them access to any of these things.
The teenager cannot enter into a contract on their own, they cannot buy a car, they cannot even buy a cell phone on their own, or get a credit card or bank account.
If you allowed them to, you as guardian have control over those assets, and you can shut them all down.
Teenagers also require things like food, clothing, and shelter, and at least until the age of 16, they won't really be able to get a job anywhere to be able to acquire any of those things without help.
There won't even be a credit rating, which means basically zero chance of renting an apartment (without a huge deposit or someone to co-sign)
Just to get a driver's license, they require legal documents, such as birth certificate, which are locked in parents' bank locker, the child cannot get on their own, until the age of 16.
And even then.. in most states parents can remove that privilege until 18.
Basically, "leaving" and going away isn't an option for the average teenager. As long as they are a captive audience, highly persuasive means means exist to control them to a great extent, even if they do not wish to be so controlled.
Parents can (and do) exert much more extreme control over their teenage children way beyond knowing where they are.
Often parents also demand they don't go to certain places (restraint of where children can go); or demand that children return by a certain time (curfew).
And various methods are at parents' disposal to verify they do what they're supposed to do, and don't lie. I think the wristwatch is just a new toy.
Coercive overprotective parents exist, and have been able to do what they want to do without the toy, it really doesn't change matters at all.
It's not like the advent of GPS-embedded on devices like cell phones is new. Parents have been using such cell phones to track their kids for a couple years at least.
Send in back under warranty, and bust the kid's ass on the 3rd watch when they figure out it wasn't malfunctioning after all.
Well, that's the worst thing that could happen, and it would be up to the parents to do it.
Somehow, I don't think most people are cruel enough to force a child to wear an accessory the child doesn't want to wear, esp. if the child claims it's uncomfortable or it hurts.
Why would people under the age of 17 have to have little locational privacy? Personally when I was 13-ish I simply stopped telling my parents where I am, usually through either flat out lying or through giving nonspecific information,
If they accepted non-specific info then they allowed you that privacy as a privilege for you out of their own free choice, which is different from you having a right to that privacy.
As for flat out lying, that's misbehavior, and prone to result in the grounding response when eventually discovered by parents either by asking around, or by covert tracking (covertly following you, or sending someone to covertly follow you and report on your whereabouts to the parents).
If you think 13 is a magic age where children suddenly deserve privacy of their whereabouts, heck no.
That privilege is @ the parents' discretion. Usually people under age 17 must at all times tell their parents where exactly they are going, at what times.
Typically parents just have to believe them, because it would be too inconvenient to have them watched at every moment, and well-behaved teens don't need it.
And their parents may use any method at their disposal to verify the children are at the places they say they are. Privacy of location is not a right children have at any age.
But usually if Children have demonstrated they can't be trusted the response isn't "Ok, wear this tracking bracelet", the response is "You can't go out, you're grounded."
IOW, removal of privacy of location by disallowing them to leave.
Slashdot Mirror
Suggestion: filter outgoing .DOCX, .DOC, .XLSX, .XLS, .PPT, .etc attachments to outside addresses.
Except their e-mail address (SMTP LOGIN) which spammers can use to send mail.
That's actually worth something >$0. Not a lot of value, but some value, definitely enough to cause you (the ISP) trouble.
Sure there is... CHAP authentication cannot be done with a hash (as opposed to the older PAP authentication which could).
The ISP has to store the plaintext password.
The advantage of CHAP is the password isn't exposed in cleartext on the wire. The disadvantage is the password has to be kept in cleartext in the password database.
You can blame Microsoft for changing the default from PAP to CHAP, because "it's more secure".
Nevermind, that "the wire" is a telco circuit, and the chance of an adversary leeching your password off of it is miniscule, compared to an adversary somehow leeching it off your ISP.
It's surely a selling point for DLP software.. but before something like this happened, I doubt IT could justify paying the extremely high price for dataleak prevention.
Yeah... you can't do it if your clients connect using PAP authentication.
This doesn't explain why the heck the info was in a spreadsheet however.
Maybe it was intended for support staff... still, it raises the question.. how the heck are you gonna keep a spreadsheet up-to-date?
If it was on a shared folder, I can't imagine any reason in hell it could have wound up attached to an e-mail, except an employee did something extremely evil.....
Goldman Sachs pays almost no state tax at all.
Unless you count employee witholdings, and real-estate property taxes.
Well, Copyright law is how they charge. Federal law (G)
It's the same thing for authors. If you sell 2 million e-books, it doesn't consume any more resources than if you sold 20. With exception of the negligible bandwidth cost (which is incurred by your out-of-state datacenters anyways).
Now if you sell those inside your state, those are all subject to state taxes.
If you sell all those outside your state, you're still subject to your state's taxes.
But: If your subsidiary sells all those outside your state. You don't pay, because your subsidiary is not you.
1: His wife's assets may be up for grabs, sure. But not the assets of Shannon Neiswonger as Trustor.
Her ownership interest in the trust may be up for grabs.
2: If the court wanted to, it could seize those assets. It would simply have to show that the dude was leaving as Trustor after the asset freeze.
The dude never left as trustor, he claimed to have resigned as trustee. The court stated due to the terms of their specific trust, any of the trustors have a right to remove property from it, even if they aren't trustee, and they expect him to exercise that right.
They also indicate his resignation as trustee is invalid, because it wasn't properly recorded. It means he still has full power of trustee, and he is ordered to exercise that full power as trustee (if necessary) in order to deliver the title.
3: I still fail to see how "suspect activities" and a violation of an injunction result in a man sitting in jail for a non-criminal defense.
The offense is criminal contempt. Refusal to take the physical actions required to obey a court order is a crime.
Microsoft has to pay other taxes, just not this one, to Washington. There are a slew of taxes that corporations have to pay.
The act of licensing a product doesn't actually use state resources.
If Microsoft licenses 2,000,000 $250 copies of Vista, it doesn't utilize any more state resources than if they had licensed 200,000 copies of vista, or if they had licensed 2,000,000 $100 copies instead.
You might think it implies they hire more support people in Washington, and thus further use state infrastructure... but it doesn't, thanks to outsourcing and call centers in India.
And most copies of Windows licensed are OEM, and volume licensed, which doesn't generate additional support demands.
Washington State has no control of Nevada tax law, and they don't have jurisdiction over Microsoft's subsidiary that handles licensing.
Microsoft surely pays taxes to Nevada for this, but they are less than the taxes would be if they did the product licensing in Washington, and thus had to pay Washington's exhorbitant licensing taxes.
This guy has a history, he is no first-time offender. I have no sympathy for a guy who ripped off people for $11 million in 1996, plea bargained for some $3 million. Had more money overseas (out of US gov't reach) than he reported, and then basically violated an injunction against him and did it all over again...
And his reason for not turning over title is listed in the Memorandum
The action was brought about by the FTC. No asset protection can really save you from the FTC, if they are of sufficient value, unless that asset protection includes you having your ass and your property in another country, in unmarked bills, or at least outside the hands of any US-based organizations that can be ordered to hand it over (by US courts).
The ruling says he's required to deliver marketable title.
That explicitly means he is required to use all resources available to him to pay off any mortgages on the property and have any encumberances by other parties released, or face contempt.
It suggests the court believes he has the resources available, or some liens/encumberances on the property are created by organizations under his control.
IOW, Since he ran an asset-protection business, the court may believe he has intentionally structured ownership of the property in attempt to protect it from the court.
Well, the judge can definitely side against him in extreme cases like this one. Asset protection is okay, until you try and use it as a shield to break the law, at which points, the courts will pwn you.
17 year olds are not really the target for these devices. I would consider it extremely brazen and overprotective to try and track a 17 yr old.
If you feel she can't be left to wander at 17, you or she has a serious problem, that needs to be solved, but cannot be solved just by tracking her for a year... on her 18th birthday, at most a year, she reaches the age of majority with all legal rights and responsibilities of any adult, and you can no longer be tracking her or compel her to do things, except if she makes a decision that she'll allow it, as an adult, she can change her mind at any time, also.
That is, unless you're planning on starting a guardianship action and claiming she has an incapacity, with extraordinary and overwhelming evidence of a mental problem, necessitating a guardian to be appointed, that is...
Naw, i'd send them to slashdot.org. They'd stay up all night reading and posting comments, and forget all about their loneliness.
Also, it's pretty hard to sneak out of the house, when there's a burglar alarm armed, cameras covering all the exits, the yard + street, and they're in a 2nd floor room, overlooking the back yard, w/ motion-sensors in the backyard that trigger lights and alarms...
Moreso, if the door out their bedroom is physically locked.
Ok, maybe that's a little extreme... but you get the idea.. if you're serious about it, you can make sneaking out pretty darn hard.
Of course you can control a teenager... they require transportation to get anywhere; transportation you don't have to provide. They require things like phones, computers, or internet connections you provide to be able to communicate with their friends, a nice warm cozy bed with TV, you don't have to provide them access to any of these things.
The teenager cannot enter into a contract on their own, they cannot buy a car, they cannot even buy a cell phone on their own, or get a credit card or bank account. If you allowed them to, you as guardian have control over those assets, and you can shut them all down.
Teenagers also require things like food, clothing, and shelter, and at least until the age of 16, they won't really be able to get a job anywhere to be able to acquire any of those things without help.
There won't even be a credit rating, which means basically zero chance of renting an apartment (without a huge deposit or someone to co-sign)
Just to get a driver's license, they require legal documents, such as birth certificate, which are locked in parents' bank locker, the child cannot get on their own, until the age of 16. And even then.. in most states parents can remove that privilege until 18.
Basically, "leaving" and going away isn't an option for the average teenager. As long as they are a captive audience, highly persuasive means means exist to control them to a great extent, even if they do not wish to be so controlled.
Parents can (and do) exert much more extreme control over their teenage children way beyond knowing where they are.
Often parents also demand they don't go to certain places (restraint of where children can go); or demand that children return by a certain time (curfew).
And various methods are at parents' disposal to verify they do what they're supposed to do, and don't lie. I think the wristwatch is just a new toy.
Coercive overprotective parents exist, and have been able to do what they want to do without the toy, it really doesn't change matters at all.
It's not like the advent of GPS-embedded on devices like cell phones is new. Parents have been using such cell phones to track their kids for a couple years at least.
Send in back under warranty, and bust the kid's ass on the 3rd watch when they figure out it wasn't malfunctioning after all.
Well, that's the worst thing that could happen, and it would be up to the parents to do it.
Somehow, I don't think most people are cruel enough to force a child to wear an accessory the child doesn't want to wear, esp. if the child claims it's uncomfortable or it hurts.
Just say they take the ad and substitute the word Linux with Apple, every time it occurs.
Why would people under the age of 17 have to have little locational privacy? Personally when I was 13-ish I simply stopped telling my parents where I am, usually through either flat out lying or through giving nonspecific information,
If they accepted non-specific info then they allowed you that privacy as a privilege for you out of their own free choice, which is different from you having a right to that privacy.
As for flat out lying, that's misbehavior, and prone to result in the grounding response when eventually discovered by parents either by asking around, or by covert tracking (covertly following you, or sending someone to covertly follow you and report on your whereabouts to the parents).
I'd have to guess it has a SIM card in it / they have a deal with a cellular carrier to use a nationwide network.
Otherwise, they could only provide the service in the areas where they've installed base stations.
Or maybe they expect the schools and local businesses to install base stations for you?
As far as I know, the watch is too small to contain a useful satellite transmitter. Granted, the signal needed should be minimal...
Explosive charge in kid's wristwatch... sounds like something you'd see on the 6-o'clock news...
Parent sues wristwatch maker; child's injuries due to explosive charge inserted by manufacturer :)
The abducter would have used simple methods everyone knows about to block the alert signal from going out while forcibly removing the device.
Probably involving several layers of aluminum foil wrapped around it, and some bolt cutters.
That brat will very quickly find some method around it, such as dousing the device, or wrapping it in tin foil, so it cannot report on their location
If you think 13 is a magic age where children suddenly deserve privacy of their whereabouts, heck no.
That privilege is @ the parents' discretion. Usually people under age 17 must at all times tell their parents where exactly they are going, at what times. Typically parents just have to believe them, because it would be too inconvenient to have them watched at every moment, and well-behaved teens don't need it.
And their parents may use any method at their disposal to verify the children are at the places they say they are. Privacy of location is not a right children have at any age.
But usually if Children have demonstrated they can't be trusted the response isn't "Ok, wear this tracking bracelet", the response is "You can't go out, you're grounded." IOW, removal of privacy of location by disallowing them to leave.
That's simple... take it off several times a day claiming it feels uncomfortable.
In other words, set off the alarm intentionally, repeatedly.