> His point is that even for those who do know how to use BCC, recipients don't know what BCC means.
That is exactly the problem, and the solution is to forward a copy of the email in question. This solution is better by every measure except upload data to the SMTP server. And since this is not a pressing issue any more, the forwarding is becoming the norm.
> Let them know that exceptions will only be made if the account owner AND the agency desiring access both certify under penalty of perjury that no consideration - including nothing related to getting or keeping a job or promotion - was offered in exchange for the access.
Why should they make any exceptions? You are not allowed to pose using somebody else's account details. Period.
> Requiring the login details to an employee's personal account on a social networking site is absolute bullshit for sure, but it hardly qualifies under the CFAA.
So if I give you my Spotify Premium login, that would be ok, because we both agree? You fail to understand that the victim is Facebook, and from their point of view this is very much unauthorized access. It is the employer who is not authorized, and he is not authorized to access Facebook. Whether the collusion by the employee qualifies as authorization, accessory to a crime or just breach of contract is only marginally relevant.
> Oh! I'd put in my resignation!!!... > Anyone have a different opinion?
Yes, very much so. Walking away is fine if this is a job interview - after all the interview is for finding out whether you are right for the employer and the employer is right for you.
But this is an interview for keeping the job. Obviously he got the job without supplying his facebook password, so why does he have to do it now? It sounds like they are unilaterally changing the rules, and that is just not on.
The real question is whether they would put the request in writing. That would be excellent evidence...
> However, they have every (and should have every) -right- to ask.
No, they don't - that would be instigating a crime. And even if it wasn't they shouldn't ask for, just like they shouldn't ask whether you are gay, Quaker, or anything else unrelated to your job.
> As much as Facebook would have you believe otherwise, breaking their terms of service, is not the same as breaking the law.
That is probably true for most of the terms, but this is a case of authorized access, and I am pretty sure that is a crime in many jurisdictions. Just because facebook access is free does not make this not a crime.
TOS may not be the main problem. I would think that this is also a federal crime "Intentionally accessing a computer without authorization to obtain:... Information from any protected computer if the conduct involves an interstate or foreign communication" and "Knowingly and with the intent to defraud, trafficking in a password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
It is about time that the FBI starts to investigate, and clears up this nest of computer crime!:-)
Terms and Conditions, 4.8: "You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account."
So to keep your job, you have to break the law?
And am I the only one hearing Judas Priest in my head now?:-)
And luckily I can do without it in most cases. I only know one website that uses it, and unfortunately a few of our intranet applications:-(
I just don't understand why one of the biggest software companies is not able to program an update mechanism that works. Microsoft can do it, Google can do it, Mozilla can do it, Debian/Ubuntu etc have mastered it. But neither Sun nor Oracle get anywhere with their solution.
Unfortunately it appears that plugin writers don't necessarily follow the guidelines for announcing themselves and further that Silverlight comes back as outdated in both checks even though I've pulled the download directly from Microsoft's site, installed it and rebooted the machine.
It is quite common to offer outdated plugins for update - the most recent version may only be available via the (usually pretty dire) update mechanism. Adobe does it, Oracle does it, why shouldn't Microsoft do it? In fact I know that they do it, certainly with some of the application bundles.
All the other browsers are adopting a decent security model with process separation and enforced sand boxing of plugins and tabs. How about catching up with some decent engineering, instead of another GUI mock up?
> We need comments from a lawyer. > Since when the demandant can confiscate property of the person is accusing?
Indeed, that seems to be seriously wrong. They want to discover evidence, and they want to see the data on his computer. So they should ask for a copy, as you do with any other document. You do not ask for the original, and most importantly you do not get the original - and certainly not the original and all backups, as requested here.
I am no lawyer, but I think Sony has compromised whatever legal case they may have had. Plus the jurisdiction is wrong.
> The hunger issue has been solved at least 4 times throughout history. In all cases as soon as hunger was no longer a limiting factor the population grew until it was again.
Indeed. The key to preventing hunger is birth control, not more food. And, to remain on topic, the internet could play its part in encouraging social change (and birth control).
> It has been an option for as long as I can remember.
Yes, but it was never officially support, and you need to install additional software to configure it (or poke around in the registry).
The official way to disable autorun is still to disable change notification in your CDROM drive. Apart from the fact that this also breaks other things, it does obviously not protect against USB sticks, because those use a different notification mechanism.
So no, officially this has never been an option. And it is not now either, the great MICROSOFT has declared it OFF.
Mozilla had original intended to ship Firefox 4 in *August* last year. End of last year was already a revised schedule.
Of course it is February now, and they keep adding features to the beta releases.
Now if it helps them to get Firefox 4 out of the door, I am all for it. But you achieve that by being realistic and getting things done. This plan serve neither:-(
> And Firefox4.0 also updates silently in the background (check the About tab right after opening)
It doesn't if you are logged in as a normal user. Although it sometimes tries and fails horribly. I had to reinstall and delete my profile before it would work again.
> Not so much, given the latest statistics given by Google.
The statistics are flawed, and Google knows that. The statistics are from app store, and obviously you access the app store when you have a new phone, because there are only the standard apps on it. Once you have found your set of apps, you are a lot less likely to visit the app store. So the statistics represent new phone rather than phones in use.
And even then I have my doubts, because there are still quite a few popular phones out there being sold with Android 2.1.
... is not as good at differentiating yourself from the competition as a system that Apple has been working on for over 5 year? (Let's not forget that the iPhone was just a spin-off from the tablet project.) Wow, I am surprised. I thought the blessing of Google would change everything. Are you saying that Google does not change everything?
TLooking back on the work they've done together, but with a sense that things will change and this date marks both the end of a bygone era and the start of a new era.
Like the end of the Lord of the Rings?:-)
I have to admit that the showmanship was a bit sub par. But this was a historic moment, and we will remember it. I just hope that they have some decent HD footage, so that we are not going to embarrass our kids with home video quality.
How well we will remember this will also depend on how painful the transition will be, which depends mostly on how much pain it takes to start it. And judging by the very minimal efforts put into IPv6 so far, that could be a lot of pain.
> When your competing search engine returns better results that your own, on your own website, you can't consider yourself having a useful search engine.
To be honest, I do not know any site that has a search function worth using (unless they use Google site search). It seems that creating a search function for a site is not trivial even if you created the site.
"We do not copy results from any of our competitors. Period. Full stop."
That is funny, because you have just been *caught* copying results from your competitor. Period. Full stop. No chance this was a coincidence.
Now you seem to think because you copy it from Google result page in the users browser, and not from Google directly, you are not copying Google. But clearly you are. The user is "authorised" to use Google search results, after all that is the whole point of the search engine. You are not.
And I think this attitude is a shame, because some of the technologies from MS are actually pretty decent. Just search engine technology does not seem to be among those.
Slashdot Mirror
How is beating my TomTom going to help with a solar eclipse?
> His point is that even for those who do know how to use BCC, recipients don't know what BCC means.
That is exactly the problem, and the solution is to forward a copy of the email in question. This solution is better by every measure except upload data to the SMTP server. And since this is not a pressing issue any more, the forwarding is becoming the norm.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
> Let them know that exceptions will only be made if the account owner AND the agency desiring access both certify under penalty of perjury that no consideration - including nothing related to getting or keeping a job or promotion - was offered in exchange for the access.
Why should they make any exceptions? You are not allowed to pose using somebody else's account details. Period.
> Requiring the login details to an employee's personal account on a social networking site is absolute bullshit for sure, but it hardly qualifies under the CFAA.
So if I give you my Spotify Premium login, that would be ok, because we both agree? You fail to understand that the victim is Facebook, and from their point of view this is very much unauthorized access. It is the employer who is not authorized, and he is not authorized to access Facebook. Whether the collusion by the employee qualifies as authorization, accessory to a crime or just breach of contract is only marginally relevant.
> Oh! I'd put in my resignation!!! ...
> Anyone have a different opinion?
Yes, very much so. Walking away is fine if this is a job interview - after all the interview is for finding out whether you are right for the employer and the employer is right for you.
But this is an interview for keeping the job. Obviously he got the job without supplying his facebook password, so why does he have to do it now? It sounds like they are unilaterally changing the rules, and that is just not on.
The real question is whether they would put the request in writing. That would be excellent evidence...
> However, they have every (and should have every) -right- to ask.
No, they don't - that would be instigating a crime. And even if it wasn't they shouldn't ask for, just like they shouldn't ask whether you are gay, Quaker, or anything else unrelated to your job.
> As much as Facebook would have you believe otherwise, breaking their terms of service, is not the same as breaking the law.
That is probably true for most of the terms, but this is a case of authorized access, and I am pretty sure that is a crime in many jurisdictions. Just because facebook access is free does not make this not a crime.
TOS may not be the main problem. I would think that this is also a federal crime "Intentionally accessing a computer without authorization to obtain: ...
Information from any protected computer if the conduct involves an interstate or foreign communication" and "Knowingly and with the intent to defraud, trafficking in a password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
It is about time that the FBI starts to investigate, and clears up this nest of computer crime! :-)
Terms and Conditions, 4.8: "You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account."
So to keep your job, you have to break the law?
And am I the only one hearing Judas Priest in my head now? :-)
And luckily I can do without it in most cases. I only know one website that uses it, and unfortunately a few of our intranet applications :-(
I just don't understand why one of the biggest software companies is not able to program an update mechanism that works. Microsoft can do it, Google can do it, Mozilla can do it, Debian/Ubuntu etc have mastered it. But neither Sun nor Oracle get anywhere with their solution.
Unfortunately it appears that plugin writers don't necessarily follow the guidelines for announcing themselves and further that Silverlight comes back as outdated in both checks even though I've pulled the download directly from Microsoft's site, installed it and rebooted the machine.
It is quite common to offer outdated plugins for update - the most recent version may only be available via the (usually pretty dire) update mechanism. Adobe does it, Oracle does it, why shouldn't Microsoft do it? In fact I know that they do it, certainly with some of the application bundles.
They are doing as part of the electrolysyis project, though I can't see how this fits in with their release roadmap.
And that is exactly the problem. They hardly get the stuff on the roadmap done, so how do they every want to complete this project?
All the other browsers are adopting a decent security model with process separation and enforced sand boxing of plugins and tabs. How about catching up with some decent engineering, instead of another GUI mock up?
> We need comments from a lawyer.
> Since when the demandant can confiscate property of the person is accusing?
Indeed, that seems to be seriously wrong. They want to discover evidence, and they want to see the data on his computer. So they should ask for a copy, as you do with any other document. You do not ask for the original, and most importantly you do not get the original - and certainly not the original and all backups, as requested here.
I am no lawyer, but I think Sony has compromised whatever legal case they may have had. Plus the jurisdiction is wrong.
> The hunger issue has been solved at least 4 times throughout history. In all cases as soon as hunger was no longer a limiting factor the population grew until it was again.
Indeed. The key to preventing hunger is birth control, not more food. And, to remain on topic, the internet could play its part in encouraging social change (and birth control).
> It has been an option for as long as I can remember.
Yes, but it was never officially support, and you need to install additional software to configure it (or poke around in the registry).
The official way to disable autorun is still to disable change notification in your CDROM drive. Apart from the fact that this also breaks other things, it does obviously not protect against USB sticks, because those use a different notification mechanism.
So no, officially this has never been an option. And it is not now either, the great MICROSOFT has declared it OFF.
Mozilla had original intended to ship Firefox 4 in *August* last year. End of last year was already a revised schedule.
Of course it is February now, and they keep adding features to the beta releases.
Now if it helps them to get Firefox 4 out of the door, I am all for it. But you achieve that by being realistic and getting things done. This plan serve neither :-(
I think you missed two important ones:
8. multi-threading support
9. privilege separation
10. proper AMD64 support
>> ... in order to catch up with IE's version number, no doubt.
To be honest, IE6 was a major version, as was IE7. I am not sure about IE8, but IE9 promises big improvements again (and about time).
> And Firefox4.0 also updates silently in the background (check the About tab right after opening)
It doesn't if you are logged in as a normal user. Although it sometimes tries and fails horribly. I had to reinstall and delete my profile before it would work again.
> Not so much, given the latest statistics given by Google.
The statistics are flawed, and Google knows that. The statistics are from app store, and obviously you access the app store when you have a new phone, because there are only the standard apps on it. Once you have found your set of apps, you are a lot less likely to visit the app store. So the statistics represent new phone rather than phones in use.
And even then I have my doubts, because there are still quite a few popular phones out there being sold with Android 2.1.
... is not as good at differentiating yourself from the competition as a system that Apple has been working on for over 5 year? (Let's not forget that the iPhone was just a spin-off from the tablet project.) Wow, I am surprised. I thought the blessing of Google would change everything. Are you saying that Google does not change everything?
TLooking back on the work they've done together, but with a sense that things will change and this date marks both the end of a bygone era and the start of a new era.
Like the end of the Lord of the Rings? :-)
I have to admit that the showmanship was a bit sub par. But this was a historic moment, and we will remember it. I just hope that they have some decent HD footage, so that we are not going to embarrass our kids with home video quality.
How well we will remember this will also depend on how painful the transition will be, which depends mostly on how much pain it takes to start it. And judging by the very minimal efforts put into IPv6 so far, that could be a lot of pain.
> When your competing search engine returns better results that your own, on your own website, you can't consider yourself having a useful search engine.
To be honest, I do not know any site that has a search function worth using (unless they use Google site search). It seems that creating a search function for a site is not trivial even if you created the site.
"We do not copy results from any of our competitors. Period. Full stop."
That is funny, because you have just been *caught* copying results from your competitor. Period. Full stop. No chance this was a coincidence.
Now you seem to think because you copy it from Google result page in the users browser, and not from Google directly, you are not copying Google. But clearly you are. The user is "authorised" to use Google search results, after all that is the whole point of the search engine. You are not.
And I think this attitude is a shame, because some of the technologies from MS are actually pretty decent. Just search engine technology does not seem to be among those.