Can someone please tell me what this "data adapter" that magically speeds my Internet access from 56Kbps to 112-168Kbps is?
Or is it just a high-octane phone jack, therefore the marketing pitch, "If your phone and modem could go faster, then this chair can keep up with it!*FCC Regulations prevent transmission speeds to 53Kbps, so really, you're never going to get any faster. But, if you did, we'd be right beside you."
Or is it a low-octane Ethernet RJ-45 port? Then, I guess the marketing pitch would be "Now that you've got high-speed cable/DSL/satellite Internet access, you can slow it down to a crawl with the new Explorer chair!"
Or, a wireless networking port...which would actually be kinda cool. But it would be nice if they included that info for me....
As for chargebacks, Internet retailers are responsible for chargebacks, since they cannot positively ID a person and CC. In the Brick & Mortar world, as long as you exercise "reasonable precautions" (translated: check the signature), whoever sponsors your merchant account absorbs the chargeback. In non face-to-face orders (eg., Internet, mail-order, phone orders), since it's impossible to do this (except for fax copies, which I think a very few companies still do), most merchant accounts require the retailer to eat the chargebacks.
Actually, this has been a pretty common occurence lately. Check out this thread at fatwallet.com which details many people who were hit by this that did not have any involvement with Egghead.com.
It would seem, also, that C|Net is running an investigation on this, and it was profiled in several news stories lately....
Maybe I'm missing something, but would you actually have ANY G's once you're off the Earth's atmosphere (and before hitting Mars')? Are there G forces in a vaccuum? I mean, the astronauts on MIR, ISS, or an orbiting shuttle are actually traveling at the speed of the earth's orbiting the sun, not to mention that if they're in a geostationary orbit at the speed of the earth's rotation as well....Are they experiencing excessive G's?
Actually, I never said that a bat is not a weapon. I simply pointed out that the reasoning of a gun being "no more a deadly" weapon than a bat or rake is flawed.
By your comment, you have backed-up my claims. You seem to concur that "an arsenal of ICBMs" are, indeed, "an even more deadly weapon". And, that is, indeed, true. Nuclear missiles (I don't believe ICBMs have to be nuclear, and I would think if you launched an arsenal of nukes that you would soon see the folly of your argument, but I digress....) are a lot more efficient than handguns (or machine guns for that matter) for large-scale death counts.
Then again, it's a helluva lot easier to kill a specific person with a gun than with a nuclear missile. So I guess it depends on your killing needs at the time which would be considered "more deadly".
Unless you've got a Nielsen box on your dormant TV, TV producers/networks/etc. don't give a flying fsck whether you watch or not.
Of course, then again, consumer electronics manafacturers and movie studios don't really give a flying fsck whether you buy their stuff or not. It's the difference between Titanic making $1,000,000,000 US Dollars, or $1,000,000,006.75.
Don't fool yourself into thinking you're making a difference....
There are a few in the States, I believe. AFAIK, they work by detecting either (a) some special little code embedded in the Closed Captioning system, or (b) a blank screen for x amount of seconds.
Wait...maybe the ones in the States don't not record the commericals, but they automatically forward theough them at ultra-high-speed....Not sure.
On your car analogy:
What about braking?
And 4WD Hi/Lo?
And the radio/cassette/CD player?
And the windshield wipers?
And the heater/AC unit?
And the seat moving?
And etc, stc.
I think you may have oversimplified cars just a tad there....
As for the boot-screen, why not? Isn't this what Linux is about? Customiziation, flexibility, etc.? How can this be seen as a Bad Thing if you don't have to install it if you don't want it, and it can be easily bypassed even if installed?
Unless you take away all deadly weapons that does not work... lets see no more knives, baseball bats, hockey sticks, cars, or rakes. A gun is no more a deadly weapon than any of those items. The key is in how it is used.
I suppose that depends on how you define deadly. Is it "able to inflict death"? In that case, I suppose you're correct...but then again, I suppose that salt, cigarettes, hang nails, bee stings, etc. would be just as deadly as guns.
OTOH, I'd think a common-sense definition of deadly would also deal with the "efficiency" of causing death. As well as the ease and frequency. In that case, I think guns are well ahead of "rakes and baseball bats". If you don't agree with that asessment, I suppose we could have a duel. I'll take the gun, and you get a rake. We'll then proceed to decide which is more deadly. =)
Eh? Did you miss Tom's Table of Contents at the bottom of each page? Unless you're not talking about tomshardware.com, I'm clueless as to what kind of coffee you drink in the morning....
1) Because the goverment gives a lot of money to these businesses via tax deductions, subsidies, gov't contracts, gov't infrastructure, etc. These monies come directly from the commoner's pockets.
2) Because [nearly] every ISP/broadband provider/etc. has the same TOS, it's kind of hard to go with someone else.
3) Because the type of "free-market force" you are describing is a theory at best, and extremely slow regardless.
4) Government is enacted, regulated, and funded by the people, for the people. Therefore, it should take to aiding the people.
5) Since when has goverment turned down legislation that businesses favor with the reasoning of "if you do not agree to the rules, drop the customer. If you drop enough customers, they will change."?
6) Many other laws are in place to protect the consumer, as well as businesses. What's one more?
OT, I know, but your Amazon warehousing diatribe got me to thinking about Dell. When I worked there, I was told that they have almost NO inventory.
Western Digital, for example, will ship them a carton of hard drives. That carton is placed on a yellow square painted on the warehouse floor. As long as its on that yellow square, it's still WD's, and Dell does not pay for it. Only when they receive orders for computer with WD hard drives will they come over and get the box. And, of course, another box takes it's place. Seemed like a pretty slick way of doing business to me. Kind of ethically questionable, IMHO, but what do I know...Michael Dell is worth billions, I'm lucky if I'm worth hundreds.
Not to side with the Author's Guild here, but you wrote a reference book. Reference books, by their very nature, are (if they're any good, at least) more likely to be held onto. A novel, on the other hand, once it's read, isn't (in most cases) worth reading again.
That being said, if books weren't so damn expensive, we wouldn't be having this discussion. A novel is a disposable item. Price it as such, and it won't be worth the hassle to sell/buy it used.
That's retarded. The two aren't even in the same state, much less ballpark.
I think the argument that used book sales hurt new book sales is perfectly valid. And I think it raises an interesting dilemma for Amazon and Bezos. Do I think they should stop prominentl displaying used books? Hell no! Why? Cause I'd rather buy the used book at half the price!
But that's not really the question. The question is does Amazon think they should stop? Well, I don't know. Depends on what their profit margin from used vs. new sales are. And what % of people that look at the new book listing go on to buy it, vs. what % look at the new book listing go on to the used book listing and buy it.
Amazon should be a bit careful here, however, because if, in fact, used book sales are significantly cutting into the new book sales, and other book sellers take note, there could be a problem. We could end up with a lot less books on the market. Of course, that might not be such a bad thing, considering all the crap that gets published.
How many people actually take the time to read through TOS/Click-thru/Shrink-wrapped licenses? It doesn't do most people any good, anyway, as most have been crafted by a lawyer skilled in legalese. Unless you have a lawyer attached to you to translate this crap to you, then, yeah, you've got a chance of being screwed!
We just all hope that by only doing business with "reputable" companies, it won't be us. But, was anybody else surprised about the Yahoo! and MSN TOS? Modifiable at any time, with no notice?!? WTF?
I think the real issue is that companies are allowed to come up with these things in the first place. I think all TOS/agreements/contracts/etc. should have to be provided in plain English that the common, reasonable man can understand without having a damn dictionary and logic book by his side. And, if said agreement goes over 1/4 of a page for something that should be relatively simple (like a web-hosting contract) then ther should be a summary page.
Let's face it, we're all being fleeced (yes, even/. geeks like us fail to read and comprehend TOS's at some point, I'm sure), it's just a matter of what company is going to take advantage of it. I'm pretty sure MSN and Yahoo! aren't going to start charging $10/page view, but they sure as hell seem to be able to! (For registered members, at least)
Except for the fact that a lot of banks take it upon themselves to "loan" you the money (if it's a somewhat trivial amount, say a $125 charge on your account that has $100 in it), charge you the bounced check fee of $25-$35, then continue to bounce checks against your account as more (perhaps fraudulent, but the bank doesn't know this) charges roll in, racking up even more NSF fees. Now, the crook has got his cash, and you're out the original cash, plus your NSF fees. Even if you're bank bounces the first charge, you'll still be hit by the NSF fee(s).
And, if you've got a checking/savings account at the same institution, they can pull the money from that account to bring your "Internet-only" checking account out of negative balance. Which, of course, cause your legitamate checks to bounce off your regular account. Which, of course, causes more NSF fees, not to mention the bounced-check charge whoever you wrote the check to is going to charge you. And, don't forget the late-payment fee as well, since your bank took it's sweet-ass time (7-10 days is common) notifying you things are going to shit. And let's hope that these fees aren't tacked onto a credit card that's already precariously close to it's credit limit, cause then you've got an overlimit fee as well.
Sure, if it's a "legitamate" "mistake", instead of fraud, you can get the money credited back to your account from the original charge. But, you're going to be SOL on those NSF fees.
A friend of mine had an account with AOL (don't ask me why, it's not important to the story). AOL decided one day to charge him BY THE MINUTE, instead of his usual $19.99/unlimited plan. When you sign up for AOL, they want a Credit Card # to automatically bill you. He used his Visa Check Card. They charged him for something like $250.00. He had it in his account, and the charge went through. Of course, that money was already earmarked for other checks that he had written but that were currently in the float. The bank processed his checks (as they are wont to do) from highest dollar amount down. This caused almost all of his checks to bounce (since they process the check for $4.95 last, the NSF fees up to that point have caused his account balance to drop below $4.95, earning them yet another NSF fee), earning him a negative balance. Him, still oblivious, thinks he has plenty of cash in his account. He goes to the ATM, withdraws $20. ATM gives it to him, no complaint. His bank charges another NSF fee. In the next few days, a few of the checks are repushed thru. They bounce again, more NSF fees. A week later, notices start rolling in. The creditors who received the bounced checks start to tack on their bounced check fees. He finally gets wind of the situation, sorts it all out, and gets on the phone. AOL apologizes, agrees to refund his $230...the next billing cycle. Bank refuses to refund ANY NSF fees. And of course, other creditors refuse to refund anything as well. Bottom line, I think it cost him > $500 to claw his way out of that mess.
The solution? PRE-AUTHORIZED charges. Meaning, in order for you to get money out of my account or credit card, I must first place a call authorizing you to get xx.xx amount of dollars on December xx, 2000 payable to xxxx Company, Inc. If it's not pre-authorized, it's summarily refused. Recurring monthly charges are authorized for $xx.xx on the xx day of each month to xxxx Company. If you don't pick it up then, you don't get it. Call me and we'll arrange something.
Unfortunately, a lot of banks will go ahead and "loan" you the money to cover an otherwise bounced transaction, and every bank that I know of will charge you bounced fees (btw $25-$30) for everything that comes in and doesn't get paid. This would include fraudulent charges, since they don't know if the charges are legit or not. Of course, you get the added benefit of their bank charging them, as well. If you then have another checking or savings account with the same bank, they can hold or use that money to bring your internet only bank account out of negative balance.
This is a reply to you, as well as the other replies in this thread.
I, too, did this in many classes. For many years. Even when I got to college. Then, one day, it hit me. Homework/busywork isn't to be taken too lightly. The teacherss in question may not understand this, but let me explain it to you:
Homework and/or busywork is pretty much what you'll be doing for the rest of your life when you get out there and work. You're job is to do it. That's it. Don't do it, and you'll get fired. Not to mention that doing this crap teaches you time and project mgmt skills. This stuff is actually valuable, but not necessarily to learn the material.
Of course, a cracker would probably figure it's just bait to reel him in. I don't believe your company coul dbe held liable for holding to it's end of the bargain, because you could claim distress. Plus, there may be a problem with consideration, as well as illegality in the cracking to begin with.
On to your mentioned problems, there would be no incentive if it's not publicized. And, of course, I wouldn't publicize it.
Perhaps after the first 2 or 3 break in, you'd need to rethink both your security setup, as well as your offer.
Possible problems I see with this:
1.) $1000 isn't much when you got a load of cc#'s, as well as possible jail-time if it is a trap. I mean, realistically, what's it worth for your company to not be publicized as the site of the last big cc theft?
2.) I wouldn't trust the cracker to not leave a back-door for himself. Even if nothing looks changed, assume that it all is changed. Take the server off-line.
3.) What's to stop the cracker from pulling the cc#'s, then returning and taking you up on your offer? Would you know that you'd been hit? Would you know that it was the same guy (or gal...)?
4.) I don't think you can extend an offer of employment with the terms of "you promise to never break the law". Perhaps, you may not use our systems in illegal, questionable, or company prohibited activities; including, but not limited to...etc, etc.
5.) Perhaps there should be a clause of no media involvement? You really don't want it publicized that a.) your site was cracked, and b.) you're now employing the cracker.
Besides that, I think it's a very interesting concept. Perhaps I'll look for it while I'm cracking your sites. =) (That was a joke, obviously. But, in light of recent/. stories, I felt the need to clarify)
You're incorrect. I don't have my Business Law reference handy, but if a party (the student) enters into a contract in good-faith, reasonably believing that the second party (the teacher) is a delegate for the third party (the company), then the second party can be held liable for the contract. Furthermore, as an authorized representative of the school, the teacher has left the school liable for the reward as well.
Also, the defeating of the PC's security restrictions is not a crime, unless another system was cracked into. The student had express permission to use the PC, and received implied permission from the teacher to circumvent the security restrictions. Even without the implied permission, depending on what he circumvented and how he did so, he's probably in the clear anyway. (For example, it wouldn't be illegal to uninstall PC based software, or use another web-based proxy to circumvent proxy software, etc.) Bottom line is that he did not illegally gain access to any system. And, even if he did crack into another system, it could be argued that he received permission from the teacher to do so. And since, the teacher is a representative of the school (who, presumably, owns the computers) he had authorization to crack the systems in a security-audit type process.
Not to even bring up the fact that the teacher knew the student was a minor, and therefore prevented from entering into a contract. Unfortunately for the teacher and school, however, there is precedent for letting the contract stand (at the minor's/guardian's discretion), especially if a substantial amount of consideration has already been performed. And, in related news, if a minor has received goods &/or services due to a contract, but has not yet paid for them, there is also precedent allowig the minor to keep the goods (or services, but then I suppose it's hard to return services) and not be liable to pay for them. Unless of course, there was fraud on the minor's part. Lesson learned: don't enter into contracts with minors.
That's the end of my law tutorial today...now back to your regularly scheduled/.ing....
Slashdot Mirror
Or is it just a high-octane phone jack, therefore the marketing pitch, "If your phone and modem could go faster, then this chair can keep up with it!*FCC Regulations prevent transmission speeds to 53Kbps, so really, you're never going to get any faster. But, if you did, we'd be right beside you."
Or is it a low-octane Ethernet RJ-45 port? Then, I guess the marketing pitch would be "Now that you've got high-speed cable/DSL/satellite Internet access, you can slow it down to a crawl with the new Explorer chair!"
Or, a wireless networking port...which would actually be kinda cool. But it would be nice if they included that info for me....
As for chargebacks, Internet retailers are responsible for chargebacks, since they cannot positively ID a person and CC. In the Brick & Mortar world, as long as you exercise "reasonable precautions" (translated: check the signature), whoever sponsors your merchant account absorbs the chargeback. In non face-to-face orders (eg., Internet, mail-order, phone orders), since it's impossible to do this (except for fax copies, which I think a very few companies still do), most merchant accounts require the retailer to eat the chargebacks.
It would seem, also, that C|Net is running an investigation on this, and it was profiled in several news stories lately....
Maybe I'm missing something, but would you actually have ANY G's once you're off the Earth's atmosphere (and before hitting Mars')? Are there G forces in a vaccuum? I mean, the astronauts on MIR, ISS, or an orbiting shuttle are actually traveling at the speed of the earth's orbiting the sun, not to mention that if they're in a geostationary orbit at the speed of the earth's rotation as well....Are they experiencing excessive G's?
By your comment, you have backed-up my claims. You seem to concur that "an arsenal of ICBMs" are, indeed, "an even more deadly weapon". And, that is, indeed, true. Nuclear missiles (I don't believe ICBMs have to be nuclear, and I would think if you launched an arsenal of nukes that you would soon see the folly of your argument, but I digress....) are a lot more efficient than handguns (or machine guns for that matter) for large-scale death counts.
Then again, it's a helluva lot easier to kill a specific person with a gun than with a nuclear missile. So I guess it depends on your killing needs at the time which would be considered "more deadly".
Ummm...maybe it could just ask you what the main URL is?
What I don't understand is why they just didn't up and patent ALL the genes? Why stop at color-blindness?
Of course, then again, consumer electronics manafacturers and movie studios don't really give a flying fsck whether you buy their stuff or not. It's the difference between Titanic making $1,000,000,000 US Dollars, or $1,000,000,006.75.
Don't fool yourself into thinking you're making a difference....
Wait...maybe the ones in the States don't not record the commericals, but they automatically forward theough them at ultra-high-speed....Not sure.
What about braking?
And 4WD Hi/Lo?
And the radio/cassette/CD player?
And the windshield wipers?
And the heater/AC unit?
And the seat moving?
And etc, stc.
I think you may have oversimplified cars just a tad there....
As for the boot-screen, why not? Isn't this what Linux is about? Customiziation, flexibility, etc.? How can this be seen as a Bad Thing if you don't have to install it if you don't want it, and it can be easily bypassed even if installed?
I suppose that depends on how you define deadly. Is it "able to inflict death"? In that case, I suppose you're correct...but then again, I suppose that salt, cigarettes, hang nails, bee stings, etc. would be just as deadly as guns.
OTOH, I'd think a common-sense definition of deadly would also deal with the "efficiency" of causing death. As well as the ease and frequency. In that case, I think guns are well ahead of "rakes and baseball bats". If you don't agree with that asessment, I suppose we could have a duel. I'll take the gun, and you get a rake. We'll then proceed to decide which is more deadly. =)
Eh? Did you miss Tom's Table of Contents at the bottom of each page? Unless you're not talking about tomshardware.com, I'm clueless as to what kind of coffee you drink in the morning....
2) Because [nearly] every ISP/broadband provider/etc. has the same TOS, it's kind of hard to go with someone else.
3) Because the type of "free-market force" you are describing is a theory at best, and extremely slow regardless.
4) Government is enacted, regulated, and funded by the people, for the people. Therefore, it should take to aiding the people.
5) Since when has goverment turned down legislation that businesses favor with the reasoning of "if you do not agree to the rules, drop the customer. If you drop enough customers, they will change."?
6) Many other laws are in place to protect the consumer, as well as businesses. What's one more?
Western Digital, for example, will ship them a carton of hard drives. That carton is placed on a yellow square painted on the warehouse floor. As long as its on that yellow square, it's still WD's, and Dell does not pay for it. Only when they receive orders for computer with WD hard drives will they come over and get the box. And, of course, another box takes it's place. Seemed like a pretty slick way of doing business to me. Kind of ethically questionable, IMHO, but what do I know...Michael Dell is worth billions, I'm lucky if I'm worth hundreds.
That being said, if books weren't so damn expensive, we wouldn't be having this discussion. A novel is a disposable item. Price it as such, and it won't be worth the hassle to sell/buy it used.
Nobody said it was illegal. Just not in everyone's best interests. CTFA. (comprehend the fucking article)
I think the argument that used book sales hurt new book sales is perfectly valid. And I think it raises an interesting dilemma for Amazon and Bezos. Do I think they should stop prominentl displaying used books? Hell no! Why? Cause I'd rather buy the used book at half the price!
But that's not really the question. The question is does Amazon think they should stop? Well, I don't know. Depends on what their profit margin from used vs. new sales are. And what % of people that look at the new book listing go on to buy it, vs. what % look at the new book listing go on to the used book listing and buy it.
Amazon should be a bit careful here, however, because if, in fact, used book sales are significantly cutting into the new book sales, and other book sellers take note, there could be a problem. We could end up with a lot less books on the market. Of course, that might not be such a bad thing, considering all the crap that gets published.
I know that doesn't give credit to individuals, but it does credit the open-source movement.
We just all hope that by only doing business with "reputable" companies, it won't be us. But, was anybody else surprised about the Yahoo! and MSN TOS? Modifiable at any time, with no notice?!? WTF?
I think the real issue is that companies are allowed to come up with these things in the first place. I think all TOS/agreements/contracts/etc. should have to be provided in plain English that the common, reasonable man can understand without having a damn dictionary and logic book by his side. And, if said agreement goes over 1/4 of a page for something that should be relatively simple (like a web-hosting contract) then ther should be a summary page.
Let's face it, we're all being fleeced (yes, even /. geeks like us fail to read and comprehend TOS's at some point, I'm sure), it's just a matter of what company is going to take advantage of it. I'm pretty sure MSN and Yahoo! aren't going to start charging $10/page view, but they sure as hell seem to be able to! (For registered members, at least)
And, if you've got a checking/savings account at the same institution, they can pull the money from that account to bring your "Internet-only" checking account out of negative balance. Which, of course, cause your legitamate checks to bounce off your regular account. Which, of course, causes more NSF fees, not to mention the bounced-check charge whoever you wrote the check to is going to charge you. And, don't forget the late-payment fee as well, since your bank took it's sweet-ass time (7-10 days is common) notifying you things are going to shit. And let's hope that these fees aren't tacked onto a credit card that's already precariously close to it's credit limit, cause then you've got an overlimit fee as well.
Sure, if it's a "legitamate" "mistake", instead of fraud, you can get the money credited back to your account from the original charge. But, you're going to be SOL on those NSF fees.
A friend of mine had an account with AOL (don't ask me why, it's not important to the story). AOL decided one day to charge him BY THE MINUTE, instead of his usual $19.99/unlimited plan. When you sign up for AOL, they want a Credit Card # to automatically bill you. He used his Visa Check Card. They charged him for something like $250.00. He had it in his account, and the charge went through. Of course, that money was already earmarked for other checks that he had written but that were currently in the float. The bank processed his checks (as they are wont to do) from highest dollar amount down. This caused almost all of his checks to bounce (since they process the check for $4.95 last, the NSF fees up to that point have caused his account balance to drop below $4.95, earning them yet another NSF fee), earning him a negative balance. Him, still oblivious, thinks he has plenty of cash in his account. He goes to the ATM, withdraws $20. ATM gives it to him, no complaint. His bank charges another NSF fee. In the next few days, a few of the checks are repushed thru. They bounce again, more NSF fees. A week later, notices start rolling in. The creditors who received the bounced checks start to tack on their bounced check fees. He finally gets wind of the situation, sorts it all out, and gets on the phone. AOL apologizes, agrees to refund his $230...the next billing cycle. Bank refuses to refund ANY NSF fees. And of course, other creditors refuse to refund anything as well. Bottom line, I think it cost him > $500 to claw his way out of that mess.
The solution? PRE-AUTHORIZED charges. Meaning, in order for you to get money out of my account or credit card, I must first place a call authorizing you to get xx.xx amount of dollars on December xx, 2000 payable to xxxx Company, Inc. If it's not pre-authorized, it's summarily refused. Recurring monthly charges are authorized for $xx.xx on the xx day of each month to xxxx Company. If you don't pick it up then, you don't get it. Call me and we'll arrange something.
Unfortunately, a lot of banks will go ahead and "loan" you the money to cover an otherwise bounced transaction, and every bank that I know of will charge you bounced fees (btw $25-$30) for everything that comes in and doesn't get paid. This would include fraudulent charges, since they don't know if the charges are legit or not. Of course, you get the added benefit of their bank charging them, as well. If you then have another checking or savings account with the same bank, they can hold or use that money to bring your internet only bank account out of negative balance.
I, too, did this in many classes. For many years. Even when I got to college. Then, one day, it hit me. Homework/busywork isn't to be taken too lightly. The teacherss in question may not understand this, but let me explain it to you:
Homework and/or busywork is pretty much what you'll be doing for the rest of your life when you get out there and work. You're job is to do it. That's it. Don't do it, and you'll get fired. Not to mention that doing this crap teaches you time and project mgmt skills. This stuff is actually valuable, but not necessarily to learn the material.
On to your mentioned problems, there would be no incentive if it's not publicized. And, of course, I wouldn't publicize it.
Perhaps after the first 2 or 3 break in, you'd need to rethink both your security setup, as well as your offer.
Possible problems I see with this:
1.) $1000 isn't much when you got a load of cc#'s, as well as possible jail-time if it is a trap. I mean, realistically, what's it worth for your company to not be publicized as the site of the last big cc theft?
2.) I wouldn't trust the cracker to not leave a back-door for himself. Even if nothing looks changed, assume that it all is changed. Take the server off-line.
3.) What's to stop the cracker from pulling the cc#'s, then returning and taking you up on your offer? Would you know that you'd been hit? Would you know that it was the same guy (or gal...)?
4.) I don't think you can extend an offer of employment with the terms of "you promise to never break the law". Perhaps, you may not use our systems in illegal, questionable, or company prohibited activities; including, but not limited to...etc, etc.
5.) Perhaps there should be a clause of no media involvement? You really don't want it publicized that a.) your site was cracked, and b.) you're now employing the cracker.
Besides that, I think it's a very interesting concept. Perhaps I'll look for it while I'm cracking your sites. =) (That was a joke, obviously. But, in light of recent /. stories, I felt the need to clarify)
Also, the defeating of the PC's security restrictions is not a crime, unless another system was cracked into. The student had express permission to use the PC, and received implied permission from the teacher to circumvent the security restrictions. Even without the implied permission, depending on what he circumvented and how he did so, he's probably in the clear anyway. (For example, it wouldn't be illegal to uninstall PC based software, or use another web-based proxy to circumvent proxy software, etc.) Bottom line is that he did not illegally gain access to any system. And, even if he did crack into another system, it could be argued that he received permission from the teacher to do so. And since, the teacher is a representative of the school (who, presumably, owns the computers) he had authorization to crack the systems in a security-audit type process.
Not to even bring up the fact that the teacher knew the student was a minor, and therefore prevented from entering into a contract. Unfortunately for the teacher and school, however, there is precedent for letting the contract stand (at the minor's/guardian's discretion), especially if a substantial amount of consideration has already been performed. And, in related news, if a minor has received goods &/or services due to a contract, but has not yet paid for them, there is also precedent allowig the minor to keep the goods (or services, but then I suppose it's hard to return services) and not be liable to pay for them. Unless of course, there was fraud on the minor's part. Lesson learned: don't enter into contracts with minors.
That's the end of my law tutorial today...now back to your regularly scheduled /.ing....