I think you're thinking google apps, which docs is a part of... but docs can also be used stand alone for free. There seems to be a bit of a loop hole, but google's EULA basically says we do w/e we want w our shit, so while it can be free, it can also become drastically unreliable. That's what I was able to come up with, I know for like contractors and their businesses, they don't have to pay, but as you grow, new standards start to apply, I think the cut-off is 10 ppl, but I could be wrong.
Researching this... google's licensing is getting to be as bad as microsoft's.
Agreed, just be available to answer any questions. It would also be nice to show where stuff's at, if you set up a process that touches 3 servers arbitrarily, you should share, but maybe only when the need for the knowledge arises. Don't schedule a meeting for something like that, wait for a manager to acknowledge the need for training, and then do it. Basically, my point is nobody makes more for training somebody. And interestingly enough, they won't replace you if they're not confident in your replacement, so probably expect at least another 6 months.
Reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act , the people quoted for the 2013 version seem to voice the same concerns as last year's version. I think CISPA is a shining example of lobbyists power over congressmen, they seem to be forcing them to introduce a bill they pretty much know will be opposed in a similar manner. Do I even have to take a stab at who could be lobbying such a thing?
Exactly my point, it's not worth associating your name with information you know is in the grey area at best. Everybody's that's leaked anything and taken credit for it has had this happen to them, it's not good or fair... but it can be avoided while still getting the message across.
I can't help but think cause a big enough traffic jam... and one of those commuters may just show up on your doorstep one day, and being a hacker, he's probably going to be a lot bigger than you.
You can post idiotic comments all you want as AC, doesn't make them useful. Consider this: your argument isn't plausible, the man in the story gave the email addresses to the newspaper, so if I gave the gun to the shooter... guess what that makes me an accomplice. Anyways, enough of responding to *mostly* idiotic idealistic arguments that seem to follow my posts, time to go home.
This is just a spin-off of kickstarter. The idea itself is stupid for the reasons you mention + many more, but chances are you will probably never hear of it again because of... well it's lack of credibility and the insane risk of betting on a college grad. I'm sure we'll see a few more spin-offs posted here on slashdot or likewise in the next year or two.
I actually tend to agree on the length of the prison term being BS, sentencing in grey area territories rarely fits the crime. What I'm trying to say though is that they sentenced him based on what could've been, rather than what was. What could've been is mass email compromising and a loss of revenue for at&t. I doubt any of that happened, but to a computer illiterate judge and prosecutor its all the same. So yes, the manner in which the sentence was appropriated is a kick back to the stone age.
So you're saying throw the book at him for daring to damage AT&T's reputation by reporting fairly and accurately on something it actually did? And more so because he stood behind his claims rather than lobbing it over the wall and bravely running away?
I could care less about at&t. He demonstrated malice when he published the email address of the OWNERS of those email addresses.
It is the court's duty to see that justice prevails no matter how incompetent the defense may be.
In the perfect world maybe, in the states, countless examples exist of people buying off the system through defense attorneys, if not even self stature.
Yes and no, you can trace a rapist to his/her victim, but you can't really assess the damage done by publishing 1k+ email addresses. What if one of those email addresses is an old lady that gets scammed by a nigerian prince? What if it's 100 of those emails that that happens to? Should the guy who provided the means for that to happen even be liable? Could it have happened anyways?
I will say this though, innocent before found guilty, if that was true, then the damage would be 0 as it can't be directly linked to criminal behavior.
Still, he wouldn't have gotten in trouble if he didn't leak the email addresses, or at least not himself, that kind of threw out any i don't know what i'm doing or I had no idea this would happen type arguments.
Well... it would more like a farm... you'd enter my 100 acre farm, drive around and randomly spot exposed gold that I did not intend to expose to you, but forgot to bury yesterday because aunt laura swung by. No signs differentiate the gold's space from any other, but you clearly know you're on my land and you know that gold is valuable. I never argued the street's case, besides that I have no expectation of security around the gold on the street, at&t's network would be a private residence owned by at&t.
Us feeling better, the environment doesn't actually better. But being able to say you did something for 1 hour out of almost 9 thousand in a year, somehow makes people feel like they're taking strides towards saving the environment... Or maybe it's the symbolism involved.
1. Popular or not I feel he deserved what he got for linking himself to the leak, he could've just as easily leaked it anonymously, I'm willing to bet the prosecutions main argument wasn't about the poor users, but at&t's hurt reputation.
2. It sounds like he needed a better lawyer to explain the public availability of the database, but that yields a more interesting question: in the case of IT incompetency, is it the hacker's fault for taking the public information, or the IT's dept fault for exposing it? Sounds like more of a moral question than a legal one. But to simplify things, say I left a pile of gold in the street, I can't have any expectation it'll be there tomorrow, the streets not mine, but say I left it in my yard, and it's unfenced, to get it, you have to trespass + it's on my property. That's what this guy did, he trespassed and took it, but he took it through a public API, so it could be argued he didn't know any better, but when he went to publish it... that's where the headlines comes into place.
Slashdot Mirror
Or... it's a mouse that mutated into a rat... which mutates into... ???
relevance? why don't you ask google?
I think you're thinking google apps, which docs is a part of... but docs can also be used stand alone for free. There seems to be a bit of a loop hole, but google's EULA basically says we do w/e we want w our shit, so while it can be free, it can also become drastically unreliable. That's what I was able to come up with, I know for like contractors and their businesses, they don't have to pay, but as you grow, new standards start to apply, I think the cut-off is 10 ppl, but I could be wrong.
Researching this... google's licensing is getting to be as bad as microsoft's.
Is it really that hard to keep rodents out of the house... or a nuclear power plant in this case.
Google docs is free for home AND business use.
Is full of people who've never had a real job before... why?
so... have they ever hired you back? Yours is not my (or other contractors) understanding of how the industry works, but nice happy thoughts though.
Agreed, just be available to answer any questions. It would also be nice to show where stuff's at, if you set up a process that touches 3 servers arbitrarily, you should share, but maybe only when the need for the knowledge arises. Don't schedule a meeting for something like that, wait for a manager to acknowledge the need for training, and then do it. Basically, my point is nobody makes more for training somebody. And interestingly enough, they won't replace you if they're not confident in your replacement, so probably expect at least another 6 months.
What? People steal cars? I better DRM mine.
and when you get there... 30 miles to get "fuel", no big deal, will get right on it after work.
Reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act , the people quoted for the 2013 version seem to voice the same concerns as last year's version. I think CISPA is a shining example of lobbyists power over congressmen, they seem to be forcing them to introduce a bill they pretty much know will be opposed in a similar manner. Do I even have to take a stab at who could be lobbying such a thing?
Exactly my point, it's not worth associating your name with information you know is in the grey area at best. Everybody's that's leaked anything and taken credit for it has had this happen to them, it's not good or fair... but it can be avoided while still getting the message across.
I can't help but think cause a big enough traffic jam... and one of those commuters may just show up on your doorstep one day, and being a hacker, he's probably going to be a lot bigger than you.
A broken leg is almost a best case scenario in that kind of wreck. Motorcycle vs. car, car wins.
You can post idiotic comments all you want as AC, doesn't make them useful. Consider this: your argument isn't plausible, the man in the story gave the email addresses to the newspaper, so if I gave the gun to the shooter... guess what that makes me an accomplice. Anyways, enough of responding to *mostly* idiotic idealistic arguments that seem to follow my posts, time to go home.
This is just a spin-off of kickstarter. The idea itself is stupid for the reasons you mention + many more, but chances are you will probably never hear of it again because of... well it's lack of credibility and the insane risk of betting on a college grad. I'm sure we'll see a few more spin-offs posted here on slashdot or likewise in the next year or two.
I actually tend to agree on the length of the prison term being BS, sentencing in grey area territories rarely fits the crime. What I'm trying to say though is that they sentenced him based on what could've been, rather than what was. What could've been is mass email compromising and a loss of revenue for at&t. I doubt any of that happened, but to a computer illiterate judge and prosecutor its all the same. So yes, the manner in which the sentence was appropriated is a kick back to the stone age.
So you're saying throw the book at him for daring to damage AT&T's reputation by reporting fairly and accurately on something it actually did? And more so because he stood behind his claims rather than lobbing it over the wall and bravely running away?
I could care less about at&t. He demonstrated malice when he published the email address of the OWNERS of those email addresses.
It is the court's duty to see that justice prevails no matter how incompetent the defense may be.
In the perfect world maybe, in the states, countless examples exist of people buying off the system through defense attorneys, if not even self stature.
Think about what you just said for a second... now go make the real posters sandwiches.
Yes and no, you can trace a rapist to his/her victim, but you can't really assess the damage done by publishing 1k+ email addresses. What if one of those email addresses is an old lady that gets scammed by a nigerian prince? What if it's 100 of those emails that that happens to? Should the guy who provided the means for that to happen even be liable? Could it have happened anyways?
I will say this though, innocent before found guilty, if that was true, then the damage would be 0 as it can't be directly linked to criminal behavior.
Still, he wouldn't have gotten in trouble if he didn't leak the email addresses, or at least not himself, that kind of threw out any i don't know what i'm doing or I had no idea this would happen type arguments.
Well... it would more like a farm... you'd enter my 100 acre farm, drive around and randomly spot exposed gold that I did not intend to expose to you, but forgot to bury yesterday because aunt laura swung by. No signs differentiate the gold's space from any other, but you clearly know you're on my land and you know that gold is valuable. I never argued the street's case, besides that I have no expectation of security around the gold on the street, at&t's network would be a private residence owned by at&t.
Us feeling better, the environment doesn't actually better. But being able to say you did something for 1 hour out of almost 9 thousand in a year, somehow makes people feel like they're taking strides towards saving the environment... Or maybe it's the symbolism involved.
1. Popular or not I feel he deserved what he got for linking himself to the leak, he could've just as easily leaked it anonymously, I'm willing to bet the prosecutions main argument wasn't about the poor users, but at&t's hurt reputation.
2. It sounds like he needed a better lawyer to explain the public availability of the database, but that yields a more interesting question: in the case of IT incompetency, is it the hacker's fault for taking the public information, or the IT's dept fault for exposing it? Sounds like more of a moral question than a legal one. But to simplify things, say I left a pile of gold in the street, I can't have any expectation it'll be there tomorrow, the streets not mine, but say I left it in my yard, and it's unfenced, to get it, you have to trespass + it's on my property. That's what this guy did, he trespassed and took it, but he took it through a public API, so it could be argued he didn't know any better, but when he went to publish it... that's where the headlines comes into place.
All we need to do is get the inflatable protective air-tight internal structures on the moon
Would give a whole new meaning to not running with scissors.
In layman's, why would anybody want to live on the moon? what possible advantage is there?