Yes, but how do you set the expiration date on that data? Information doesn't decay as there is no biological (or other entropy-effected) component to it. I think anyone advocating a terminal date for any sort of data, without explaining how that date will be managed, is just setting themselves up for failure.
I'll admit that might be a gray area since you have to use their network and proxies. But that monitoring only involves actual snooping on the traffic going over their network. They can't log into your mailbox whenever they feel like it so it's a very different circumstance that what happened in this case.
That's the only conclusion I can come to based on the absolute horribleness of the summary. The fact is, these devices are owned by the employer in question. So going from the principle that employers can already monitor telephone conversations on equipment they own and monitor email communications on equipment they own, there is absolutely no legal justification for them to be prevented from monitoring texts on equipment they own.
Want privacy from your employer? Go spend $40 a month and get your own cell phone.
There are definitely things the English have given the world in terms of cuisine. Ever wonder why the French call them "le rosbif"? Because of all the roast beef they eat.
Then there are delicacies like spotted dick, blood sausage, pudding (both deserts and savories), and meat pies. The best, of course, is the MLT, especially when the mutton is nice and lean.
There are definitely things the English have given the world in terms of cuisine. Ever wonder why the French call them "le rosbif"? Because of all the roast beef they eat.
Then there are delicacies like spotted dick, blood sausage, pudding (both deserts and savories), and meat pies. The best, of course, is the MLT, especially when the mutton is nice and lean.
No, I disagree completely. The law should follow the physical location of the server, not the client.
What you think the law "should" do is a far cry from what it actually does. You should educate yourself on these matters before you get yourself in trouble (cf. e360 vs. Spamhaus).
I'm pretty sure it's improper to sue someone in state court if they're out of the country. You're supposed to use the Federal courts for that. And if someone filed fraudulent court docs in support of their case, well, there are statutes for that.
But none of that really matters because, as someone else pointed out, Spamhaus initially responded. That established that the court had jurisdiction. After that, they either had to keep showing up, or accept the default judgment. I'm pretty sure the US and UK have reciprocal agreements on things like that, so this judgment will almost certainly be levied at some point.
From what I remember, that's not what happened. They testified that Spamhaus was conducting business in Illinois. Which they were, since they were providing their service to people and businesses in Illinois. The judge did the right thing by applying the law and not what Skuld-Chan thinks is "common sense".
FTFA: Some parents have criticised police over why their children were allowed into classes while officers were investigating a possible armed threat.
Um, I dunno, maybe because they were still investigating and didn't want to jump to any conclusions?
But really the larger problem is, why aren't these parents concerned that:
* The school has a sufficient problem with bullies that a kid may have wanted to kill people over it, yet the administration did nothing about it (apparently). * A foreign law enforcement agency is scanning their kids' Facebook pages with no jurisdiction and no warrants.
Seems these parents really need to reevaluate their priorities in life. And I say this as a parent of two children in college and two more in middle school.
Sure, if by "somebody" you mean "HAL 9000's nosy nephew". Or did you miss the part where automated scanning software picked up this "threat"?
Considering how much spam gets passed my spam filter I see no reason to trust a computer program to determine whether a threat is credible. Especially one written to government specs.
I mean, if he writes a note theatening bullies so that they don't ruin the last day of school for him, so that he can eat his lunch in peace, is it necessary for the police to step in?
Probably not.
I think it's a good thing the police were notified, this is a potential threat, and it's good that they acted upon it.
Second, my snipe was more about the crap summary than what you posted. Actually, it was only about the crap summary and not what you posted. Since this guy's job is fairly esoteric and out of the normal range of experience for most people, some detail as to who the hell he is should've been included.
Just to be clear, your post was useful and well written. The summary, not so much.
The story is ostensibly about Newsweek.com putting an Easter egg on their website. Then why is there no link to said website in the fine summary?
I used to hate kdawson only for his idiotic political posts during the final days of the Bush administration. Now I hate him for posting godawful story after godawful story. Leave this one to samzenpus to put on Idle, it at least belongs there.
No, I'm pointing out that your initial comment betrayed a stunning lack of logic. Illogical comments should be ignored, there's no point debating someone who has no grasp of how to do so. It is a complete waste of time, and is analogous to wrestling a pig in the mud.
The answer is: you blame the person who caused it or paved the way for it to happen. The left has been blaming Obama for many things, you just don't hear about it on Fox News.
Nice strawman. You assume I watch Fox News because I disagree with you (so it's kind of an ad hominem, too). I think I can just ignore everything else you have to say and still live a happy, prosperous life.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but how do you set the expiration date on that data? Information doesn't decay as there is no biological (or other entropy-effected) component to it. I think anyone advocating a terminal date for any sort of data, without explaining how that date will be managed, is just setting themselves up for failure.
I'll admit that might be a gray area since you have to use their network and proxies. But that monitoring only involves actual snooping on the traffic going over their network. They can't log into your mailbox whenever they feel like it so it's a very different circumstance that what happened in this case.
Employers are never allowed to monitor employees' "private" emails. Which means their non-work accounts.
Seriously, how hard is it to sign up for a Hotmail or Yahoo account and keep your work life distinct from your private life?
That's the only conclusion I can come to based on the absolute horribleness of the summary. The fact is, these devices are owned by the employer in question. So going from the principle that employers can already monitor telephone conversations on equipment they own and monitor email communications on equipment they own, there is absolutely no legal justification for them to be prevented from monitoring texts on equipment they own.
Want privacy from your employer? Go spend $40 a month and get your own cell phone.
Jurisdiction in rem, read about it.
And please don't respond anymore, you're just embarrassing yourself by displaying the complete lack of knowledge you possess in this domain.
There are definitely things the English have given the world in terms of cuisine. Ever wonder why the French call them "le rosbif"? Because of all the roast beef they eat.
Then there are delicacies like spotted dick, blood sausage, pudding (both deserts and savories), and meat pies. The best, of course, is the MLT, especially when the mutton is nice and lean.
There are definitely things the English have given the world in terms of cuisine. Ever wonder why the French call them "le rosbif"? Because of all the roast beef they eat.
Then there are delicacies like spotted dick, blood sausage, pudding (both deserts and savories), and meat pies. The best, of course, is the MLT, especially when the mutton is nice and lean.
No, I disagree completely. The law should follow the physical location of the server, not the client.
What you think the law "should" do is a far cry from what it actually does. You should educate yourself on these matters before you get yourself in trouble (cf. e360 vs. Spamhaus).
I'm pretty sure it's improper to sue someone in state court if they're out of the country. You're supposed to use the Federal courts for that. And if someone filed fraudulent court docs in support of their case, well, there are statutes for that.
But none of that really matters because, as someone else pointed out, Spamhaus initially responded. That established that the court had jurisdiction. After that, they either had to keep showing up, or accept the default judgment. I'm pretty sure the US and UK have reciprocal agreements on things like that, so this judgment will almost certainly be levied at some point.
From what I remember, that's not what happened. They testified that Spamhaus was conducting business in Illinois. Which they were, since they were providing their service to people and businesses in Illinois. The judge did the right thing by applying the law and not what Skuld-Chan thinks is "common sense".
Typical Federal employee, trying to get someone else to do their job for them. ;)
I'd believe it. Cool memes always start on 4chan.
FTFA: Some parents have criticised police over why their children were allowed into classes while officers were investigating a possible armed threat.
Um, I dunno, maybe because they were still investigating and didn't want to jump to any conclusions?
But really the larger problem is, why aren't these parents concerned that:
* The school has a sufficient problem with bullies that a kid may have wanted to kill people over it, yet the administration did nothing about it (apparently).
* A foreign law enforcement agency is scanning their kids' Facebook pages with no jurisdiction and no warrants.
Seems these parents really need to reevaluate their priorities in life. And I say this as a parent of two children in college and two more in middle school.
Sure, if by "somebody" you mean "HAL 9000's nosy nephew". Or did you miss the part where automated scanning software picked up this "threat"?
Considering how much spam gets passed my spam filter I see no reason to trust a computer program to determine whether a threat is credible. Especially one written to government specs.
That is the most braindead thing I've ever read. I'm going to kill you because of it!
I mean, if he writes a note theatening bullies so that they don't ruin the last day of school for him, so that he can eat his lunch in peace, is it necessary for the police to step in?
Probably not.
I think it's a good thing the police were notified, this is a potential threat, and it's good that they acted upon it.
Then again...
and pixellated bitmaps of Heather Lochlear nude
Next time, post the link!
Has anyone mentioned that, as great as those magazines were, their time is over but you can find the exact same stuff on the Internet?
First, you assume I'm in the 99%, not the 1%.
Second, my snipe was more about the crap summary than what you posted. Actually, it was only about the crap summary and not what you posted. Since this guy's job is fairly esoteric and out of the normal range of experience for most people, some detail as to who the hell he is should've been included.
Just to be clear, your post was useful and well written. The summary, not so much.
The story is ostensibly about Newsweek.com putting an Easter egg on their website. Then why is there no link to said website in the fine summary?
I used to hate kdawson only for his idiotic political posts during the final days of the Bush administration. Now I hate him for posting godawful story after godawful story. Leave this one to samzenpus to put on Idle, it at least belongs there.
It's only bewildering if you don't understand how public administrators work.
So only for 99% of the populace then?
HOW is the price of oil REALLY controlled?
Simple answer: it's not.
No, I'm pointing out that your initial comment betrayed a stunning lack of logic. Illogical comments should be ignored, there's no point debating someone who has no grasp of how to do so. It is a complete waste of time, and is analogous to wrestling a pig in the mud.
Don't confuse specialist (someone with specialized training) with expert (someone with extensive experience).
The answer is: you blame the person who caused it or paved the way for it to happen. The left has been blaming Obama for many things, you just don't hear about it on Fox News.
Nice strawman. You assume I watch Fox News because I disagree with you (so it's kind of an ad hominem, too). I think I can just ignore everything else you have to say and still live a happy, prosperous life.