I'm an employer, not a lawyer, so check with a lawyer to see if what I say is correct, but I believe it is.
If your employer told you (or better yet, put it in writing) that you were fired because you were a security risk, then you may be able to sue. Here is why:
You can be fired for making false statements on an employment application. No matter why you were fired, if you lie on your application your case is lost. So, when filling out future employment applications for the position of security admin you must say you were fired from your last job because they thought you were a security risk. Of course no one will hire you. Get any of them (but perferably four or more) to put in writing you were not hired because your application says you were fired for being a security risk.
Now sue your previous employer and the security company for $10,000,000. Even if your employment was "at will" you can still sue in this instance because they have effected your future employability by claiming your were a security risk. If you are lucky, the security company put in writing (very stupid) that you were a security risk but it isn't necessary that they did so. People frequently win this type of case. Lesson to employers - "NEVER TELL SOMEONE WHY THEY ARE BEING FIRED".
There is only one catch. If you have bad credit then that is proof you are a security risk. You could still win (think jury trial), but it would be harder.
Please read the fine print. In the communications world "Access" means to connect to. Internet Access is a connection to the Internet. Unlimited Internet Access means that your Internet Access (your connection) is not "time" limited. You cannot interpret it to mean "Unlimited Bandwidth" since clearly all bandwidth is limited.
To an ISP, bandwidth is volume - not speed. That is because ISP's are charged by the Internet backbone providers for the maximum volume that their connection to the Internet is capable of handling. That rate varies between $150-300 per month per Megabit/sec. If that sounds like speed to you, just multiply it times the number of seconds in a month. $20 = approximately 21 GigaBytes download.
If you use more bandwidth than you are paying the ISP for at the ISP's cost, expect them to take action because they would save money (increase profits) by kicking your butt out the door.
Only paying a constible to serve the papers will stand up in court as proof of delivery (been there). In my case, I gave the sheriff's office the papers. They made copies so they could testify as to what they delivered and then delivered the originals. Worked great and wasn't very expensive.
ISP's pay for volume, not speed. Dial-up users average 500 bits per second. Pre-P2P DSL measures show DSL customers using just under 4000 bits per second. Looking at the graphs for last week, our DSL customers are averaging 24,000 bit per second. As a result the ISP is paying six times as much for bandwidth as was expected. That is why the ISP broadband model is broken.
So, should ISP's increase DSL charges six fold to reflect the increased cost due to P2P even though 90% of their customers don't use P2P?
Dynamic bandwidth shaping allows a customer to run at full speed for, say, 3 minutes but then starts cutting the speed down so that it doesn't exceed, say, 60MB in an hour. This restores the ISP's pricing model.
The side plus of dynamic bandwidth shaping is that it reduces network congestion providing a snappier connection for web surfing and game playing.
So, the question is, will ISP's trade 10% of their revenue for an 85% decrease in bandwidth cost? Hmm... let me see? Maybe they will sign up with my competitor, trash his network and I can pick up 90% of his customers. Bonus!! 80% increase in revenue and 70% decrease in bandwidth cost. YES!!!!
You forgot one. If you have customers who forward email to AOL and then cancel their AOL accounts without removing the forward, the email gets bounced back - User Unknown. Too many User Unknowns in too short a period and AOL declares you a spammer and starts blocking email from your server.
I'm an ISP, I'll say that up front. There was a little law passed a couple years ago called the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Every ISP had to file a paper with the government providing the name of the person who is responsible at the ISP for handling matters regarding copyright infringement. The law requires that when I am informed that a subscriber is using my service to distribute copyrighted matterial without the permission of the owner of the copyright, then I must take action to stop them. That could be interpreted to mean that I must block the use of programs like Napster or cancel the subscriber's Internet service. If I fail to do this, I can be fined and the owner of the copyright can sue me. So, to answer the question, AOL is accountable when and if the copyright owner lodges a complaint against a subscriber. Why Napster and others are doomed to failure in the courts is pretty clear when you look at existing laws regarding things other than music. For example, it is legal for a locksmith to be sold a lock pick and to have possession of a lock pick. However, if you are not a locksmith you can go to jail for having one in your possession. It is illegal, you see, to be in possession of "burgler tools" or to sell burgler tools to the public. Likewise, there are a lot of products you cannot buy or own because they are commonly used to commit crime. Hacking programs, guns in many cities and so on all fall into categories of things you can be banded from possessing because they are commonly used to commit crime. So, if Napster and similar programs are "commonly used to commit crime" such as copyright infringement, then it can become illegal to own or use the programs and the company that produces the program can be banned from distributing it to the public or facillitating the public's use of the program. That is the arguement against Napster and it is Napster users who have put them into the position of being a distributer of "burgler tools" by using their program to "commonly" distribute copyrighted material.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an employer, not a lawyer, so check with a lawyer to see if what I say is correct, but I believe it is.
;)
If your employer told you (or better yet, put it in writing) that you were fired because you were a security risk, then you may be able to sue. Here is why:
You can be fired for making false statements on an employment application. No matter why you were fired, if you lie on your application your case is lost. So, when filling out future employment applications for the position of security admin you must say you were fired from your last job because they thought you were a security risk. Of course no one will hire you. Get any of them (but perferably four or more) to put in writing you were not hired because your application says you were fired for being a security risk.
Now sue your previous employer and the security company for $10,000,000. Even if your employment was "at will" you can still sue in this instance because they have effected your future employability by claiming your were a security risk. If you are lucky, the security company put in writing (very stupid) that you were a security risk but it isn't necessary that they did so. People frequently win this type of case. Lesson to employers - "NEVER TELL SOMEONE WHY THEY ARE BEING FIRED".
There is only one catch. If you have bad credit then that is proof you are a security risk. You could still win (think jury trial), but it would be harder.
Have fun, be American
Please read the fine print. In the communications world "Access" means to connect to. Internet Access is a connection to the Internet. Unlimited Internet Access means that your Internet Access (your connection) is not "time" limited. You cannot interpret it to mean "Unlimited Bandwidth" since clearly all bandwidth is limited.
To an ISP, bandwidth is volume - not speed. That is because ISP's are charged by the Internet backbone providers for the maximum volume that their connection to the Internet is capable of handling. That rate varies between $150-300 per month per Megabit/sec. If that sounds like speed to you, just multiply it times the number of seconds in a month. $20 = approximately 21 GigaBytes download.
If you use more bandwidth than you are paying the ISP for at the ISP's cost, expect them to take action because they would save money (increase profits) by kicking your butt out the door.
Only paying a constible to serve the papers will stand up in court as proof of delivery (been there). In my case, I gave the sheriff's office the papers. They made copies so they could testify as to what they delivered and then delivered the originals. Worked great and wasn't very expensive.
ISP's pay for volume, not speed. Dial-up users average 500 bits per second. Pre-P2P DSL measures show DSL customers using just under 4000 bits per second. Looking at the graphs for last week, our DSL customers are averaging 24,000 bit per second. As a result the ISP is paying six times as much for bandwidth as was expected. That is why the ISP broadband model is broken.
So, should ISP's increase DSL charges six fold to reflect the increased cost due to P2P even though 90% of their customers don't use P2P?
Dynamic bandwidth shaping allows a customer to run at full speed for, say, 3 minutes but then starts cutting the speed down so that it doesn't exceed, say, 60MB in an hour. This restores the ISP's pricing model.
The side plus of dynamic bandwidth shaping is that it reduces network congestion providing a snappier connection for web surfing and game playing.
So, the question is, will ISP's trade 10% of their revenue for an 85% decrease in bandwidth cost? Hmm... let me see? Maybe they will sign up with my competitor, trash his network and I can pick up 90% of his customers. Bonus!! 80% increase in revenue and 70% decrease in bandwidth cost. YES!!!!
I'm an ISP so I get to reply :P
You forgot one. If you have customers who forward email to AOL and then cancel their AOL accounts without removing the forward, the email gets bounced back - User Unknown. Too many User Unknowns in too short a period and AOL declares you a spammer and starts blocking email from your server.
I'm an ISP, I'll say that up front. There was a little law passed a couple years ago called the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Every ISP had to file a paper with the government providing the name of the person who is responsible at the ISP for handling matters regarding copyright infringement. The law requires that when I am informed that a subscriber is using my service to distribute copyrighted matterial without the permission of the owner of the copyright, then I must take action to stop them. That could be interpreted to mean that I must block the use of programs like Napster or cancel the subscriber's Internet service. If I fail to do this, I can be fined and the owner of the copyright can sue me. So, to answer the question, AOL is accountable when and if the copyright owner lodges a complaint against a subscriber. Why Napster and others are doomed to failure in the courts is pretty clear when you look at existing laws regarding things other than music. For example, it is legal for a locksmith to be sold a lock pick and to have possession of a lock pick. However, if you are not a locksmith you can go to jail for having one in your possession. It is illegal, you see, to be in possession of "burgler tools" or to sell burgler tools to the public. Likewise, there are a lot of products you cannot buy or own because they are commonly used to commit crime. Hacking programs, guns in many cities and so on all fall into categories of things you can be banded from possessing because they are commonly used to commit crime. So, if Napster and similar programs are "commonly used to commit crime" such as copyright infringement, then it can become illegal to own or use the programs and the company that produces the program can be banned from distributing it to the public or facillitating the public's use of the program. That is the arguement against Napster and it is Napster users who have put them into the position of being a distributer of "burgler tools" by using their program to "commonly" distribute copyrighted material.