So you would have however many untrained individual teachers tasked with securing their own classroom systems?
You are overlooking the fact that it is NOT the teachers responsibility to maintain the school system's IT.
For you, me, and probably most of/. this is not much of an issue. You seriously expect a substitute teacher to be able to secure a Windows 98 box? They shouldn't even be USING that garbage at this point. The school system has a duty to its staff and students to configure and maintain those systems.
Also don't kid yourself that FF and AdblockPlus are the end all be all, especially with ancient gear like a Win 98 box.
The school system is negligent. Period.
Who or what if anything is securing those systems that are full of student and teacher SSN's and other private info?
The school needs to be hammered HARD over this. If they can railroad a poor substitute for things that are beyond her control (or understand, frankly) then every teacher in that system needs to tell the administration that the PCs stay unplugged until the issue gets addressed.
You know, maybe if companies would spend less time trying to figure out how to target me with ads for stuff I find lacking and actually, oh I dunno, make products I actually want to buy, then maybe I would. And they wouldn't need to waste their ad dollars.
they can terminate service due to a TOS violation and there be no recourse between the parties - but the fact that you induced the termination of service opens you up to damages
How is that even possible? How can you be liable for presenting the exact same factual evidence to an ISP (for it to use in an internal fashion to address the issue) that you would present to a federal LEO (for it to pursue a criminal complaint against the offender), which would likely result in the exact same action once the ISP is made aware of the criminal investigation and the evidence.
So you can be held liable for actions that a party takes in response to you filing a legitimate complaint?
Adblock Plus? Are you daft? There should have been network based measures in place to defend against this type of crap.
My guess is they have effectively no IT department, especially given that they are using Windows 98 in classrooms when it is completely unsecurable, and seem to have zero protective measures in place or policies or teacher training.
More than a few people need a serious punch in the crotch over this and the poor woman needs to be cleared and reinstated and issued a full public apology.
Actually, its my PROFESSIONAL duty. Good luck suing me for pointing out that you are committing a felony to your provider. I have the feds computer crimes department on speed-dial.
If a shit-ton of malicious crap and SPAM/malware are coming into MY client's network (causing ME and MY CLIENTS a material loss), or if my client's systems have been infected with a botnet controlled from YOUR IP space(a felony), it is your responsibility to address that when I tell you about it. If you don't I'll talk to YOUR provider. Or would you rather I call the FBI and tell them you're systematically attacking my client?
I don't even have to be involved actually, I can just tell MY client's providers (some of which are backbone providers) what I see coming from YOUR network and they have entire departments to deal with that type of shit. So you can fight Level 3 and Verizon for all I care. Your customers are attacking their customers, they can cut you off just as easily.
The problem comes when the upstream provider violated their contract with the customers
They haven't violated their contract to their customers, they violated their contract with thier upstream provider. Completely different things.
that may have been using the service in accordance with the TOS but lost their service due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I can sympathize but if you want to be a customer of an ISP that behaves so poorly that its own providers tell it to go to hell than I can't have much sympathy. You do know that the offenders are limiting YOUR bandwidth too right?
Which, if you want to split hairs, is principally the fault of the provider and possibly to a lesser extent the person reporting the problem because they provided false information. I say possibly because I don't know what information was provided.
No, the fault is ENTIRELY that of the ISP failing to police its customers' behaviour. The upstream provider has ZERO blame for enforcing its terms of service, and the reporting party doesn't either. Everything done was entirely legal.
Reporting party: "Hey I've notice a crapton of SPAM, viruses and malware coming from your IP block"
Upstream provider: "Holy Crap! Yeah that is way outside acceptable use"
Upstream cuts of the offender for violating their agreement.
What's wrong with that?
I am glad, then, that the decision is not theirs to make. Besides, most people think they're above average drivers too...
Actually the decision IS mine to make in places where I manage the network. I have numerous blacklisted IP blocks of known hostile networks and SPAM/malware sites. I protect my clients at the level I am governing. Higher up the chain, other net admins will be doing the same whenever an ISP doesn't smack down its malicious users.
Incidently, infecting systems with botnet crap is a felony. Has been for years.
You can't say they shouldn't help RIAA enforce their copyright by booting you off your connection for P2P, then turn around and say they should police people for spam. They're common carriers; It means they're not responsible, nor should they be. If we start down this road, the internet as we know it ends.
1) I never mentioned P2P or any of that crap but if I violate my ISP's terms of use they are free to cut me off
2) ISPs are NOT common carriers, educate yourself
3) They ARE responsible insofar as their provider's acceptible use policy is concerned. Violate it and get cut off.
Citation needed.
Wow, how long HAVE you been on the internet anyway?
Look, the solution here is laws not vigilantism...
Law: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (among others) makes infecting systems to be part of a botnet a felony. Also things like the CAN-SPAM Act have criminalized SPAM. There are laws, but getting anyone caught and prosecuted when the are sitting in the middle of the Ukraine is kindof difficult.
Because the simple truth is no matter how good you are sooner or later you're going to fuck it up.
Not if all you are doing is telling a provider to "look over there" and they check it out and only act on it if what you say true.
The law ensures that when this happens, there's recourse. A vigilante will just disappear into the night with the words "I'm sorry" on his/her lips. And not only that, but the entire tone of your response rather underscores the need to get emotion out of this situation and the justice system is far better suited to this than your "Let's get a posse together and ride" solution.
The law does no such thing when the perpetrators are outside its jurisdiction. And there are no vigilantes as everything was done within the bounds of the law. Your ignorance is astounding. The tone of my respons
1. I don't have a solution, I'm just considering the ethical aspect.
What is unethical about pointing out MASSIVE violation of terms of service by an ISP to their provider? The ISP has a duty to obey the terms they agreed to, and if it can't or won't it gets cut off. Just like you or I would get cut off by our upstream for violating whatever agreement we may have in place.
2. I'd rather deal with spam, malware, and con artists clogging the internet than vigilantes blowing holes in it.
Considering the sheer cost of cleaning up this bullshit, I doubt many share the same opinion. And the intenet was designed to route around holes in it. Theoretically at least.
3. As to who's protecting them -- it's not a question of who but what. In this case, economics.
No. There are definately quite a few "who"s in this mix. Like the greedy bastards who look the other way while their customers commit felonies. They are accessories to the crimes of their clients if they don't cut them off for their criminal bullshit.
4. It has taken this long because until now people were restrained by ethical considerations prevalent within the community. However, a certain moral flexibility seems to be developing now out of frustration. This can only end badly.
Are you kidding? People have been black-holed for decades on the internet for stuff like this.
WHERE IS THE ETHICAL ISSUE WITH TELLING A PROVIDER THAT THEIR CLIENTS ARE IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THEIR ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY????
Or worse.
Either they need to act on it when its pointed out or they will find themselves having to screen their traffic for content because of some cockamamy law passed because they were KNOWINGLY looking the other way while the sold space to kiddy-porn traders after numerous people pointed it out.
1. Send husband's hard-earned money to his own foreign account while he scams you 2. Ignore warnings and claim you're helping a Nigerian prince 3. Play victim and make it public, sell book/movie rights 4. Divorce husband and move away 5. Turn up dead somewhere while hubby collects on MASSIVE insurance policy 6. Profit!
Actually, the natural immunity can largely be traced back to small populations in europe that had very large survival rates during the Black Death in the middle ages.
The immunity was likely present prior to HIV's emergence.
This was not an inate thing, it was developed over time. Learning to pick out specific sounds from background noise, learning not to be distracted by peripheral movement or sudden noises, tracking an objects movement even while it is obscured. I also taught myself to do the opposite and observe the totality of a scene, and am far less likely to fall prey to tunnel vision, etc.
I don't see this as any different than learning to judge distances or speeds (which most people can't).
The point being, I wasn't doing this as a kid, I LEARNED to do it. It's not actually very difficult. I just think that the majority of people don't think about how to use their senses. Or bother to learn.
Yeah that inexperienced thing is patently retarded. He has about the same level of experience as Kennedy and more importantly, he's intelligent enought to surround himself with good advisors rather than sycophants and criminals.
Well honestly what can you expect, when the last band of idiots was allowed to run up a 7 trillion dollar deficit? SOMEONE is going to have to pay that off.
This is something I have NEVER been able to understand. I have always been able to filter out or ignore just about anything I feel like. I can pick out an individual conversation from several feet away in a crowded bar, TVs or radios don't bother me, I just tune them out.
I just don't quite get how seemingly everyone else CAN'T do this.
My personal (and I can't speak for Mitch) take is that tv-b-gone is supposed to be an equalizer, yes it annoys other people but then your annoyed by TV.
I'm more annoyed that people constantly spout stupidity just about 24/7 but I have no right to forcibly shut them up.
Its NOT your TV. Its NOT your PROPERTY. Leave if you don't like it. Or maybe here's a thought, ASK the propriator if they'll turn it off, down, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
So you would have however many untrained individual teachers tasked with securing their own classroom systems?
You are overlooking the fact that it is NOT the teachers responsibility to maintain the school system's IT.
For you, me, and probably most of /. this is not much of an issue. You seriously expect a substitute teacher to be able to secure a Windows 98 box? They shouldn't even be USING that garbage at this point. The school system has a duty to its staff and students to configure and maintain those systems.
Also don't kid yourself that FF and AdblockPlus are the end all be all, especially with ancient gear like a Win 98 box.
The school system is negligent. Period.
Who or what if anything is securing those systems that are full of student and teacher SSN's and other private info?
The school needs to be hammered HARD over this. If they can railroad a poor substitute for things that are beyond her control (or understand, frankly) then every teacher in that system needs to tell the administration that the PCs stay unplugged until the issue gets addressed.
So those that were responsible for maintaining, or in this case not maintaining, the filtering software are the ones who are at fault for this.
You know, maybe if companies would spend less time trying to figure out how to target me with ads for stuff I find lacking and actually, oh I dunno, make products I actually want to buy, then maybe I would. And they wouldn't need to waste their ad dollars.
Wouldn't the school be liable under CIPA?
Aren't they supposed to have monitoring and filtering in place?
they can terminate service due to a TOS violation and there be no recourse between the parties - but the fact that you induced the termination of service opens you up to damages
How is that even possible? How can you be liable for presenting the exact same factual evidence to an ISP (for it to use in an internal fashion to address the issue) that you would present to a federal LEO (for it to pursue a criminal complaint against the offender), which would likely result in the exact same action once the ISP is made aware of the criminal investigation and the evidence.
So you can be held liable for actions that a party takes in response to you filing a legitimate complaint?
The law is seriously bizarre.
Adblock Plus? Are you daft? There should have been network based measures in place to defend against this type of crap.
My guess is they have effectively no IT department, especially given that they are using Windows 98 in classrooms when it is completely unsecurable, and seem to have zero protective measures in place or policies or teacher training.
More than a few people need a serious punch in the crotch over this and the poor woman needs to be cleared and reinstated and issued a full public apology.
Actually, its my PROFESSIONAL duty. Good luck suing me for pointing out that you are committing a felony to your provider. I have the feds computer crimes department on speed-dial.
If a shit-ton of malicious crap and SPAM/malware are coming into MY client's network (causing ME and MY CLIENTS a material loss), or if my client's systems have been infected with a botnet controlled from YOUR IP space(a felony), it is your responsibility to address that when I tell you about it. If you don't I'll talk to YOUR provider. Or would you rather I call the FBI and tell them you're systematically attacking my client?
I don't even have to be involved actually, I can just tell MY client's providers (some of which are backbone providers) what I see coming from YOUR network and they have entire departments to deal with that type of shit. So you can fight Level 3 and Verizon for all I care. Your customers are attacking their customers, they can cut you off just as easily.
The problem comes when the upstream provider violated their contract with the customers
They haven't violated their contract to their customers, they violated their contract with thier upstream provider. Completely different things.
that may have been using the service in accordance with the TOS but lost their service due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I can sympathize but if you want to be a customer of an ISP that behaves so poorly that its own providers tell it to go to hell than I can't have much sympathy. You do know that the offenders are limiting YOUR bandwidth too right?
Which, if you want to split hairs, is principally the fault of the provider and possibly to a lesser extent the person reporting the problem because they provided false information. I say possibly because I don't know what information was provided.
No, the fault is ENTIRELY that of the ISP failing to police its customers' behaviour. The upstream provider has ZERO blame for enforcing its terms of service, and the reporting party doesn't either. Everything done was entirely legal.
Reporting party: "Hey I've notice a crapton of SPAM, viruses and malware coming from your IP block"
Upstream provider: "Holy Crap! Yeah that is way outside acceptable use"
Upstream cuts of the offender for violating their agreement.
What's wrong with that?
I am glad, then, that the decision is not theirs to make. Besides, most people think they're above average drivers too...
Actually the decision IS mine to make in places where I manage the network. I have numerous blacklisted IP blocks of known hostile networks and SPAM/malware sites. I protect my clients at the level I am governing. Higher up the chain, other net admins will be doing the same whenever an ISP doesn't smack down its malicious users.
Incidently, infecting systems with botnet crap is a felony. Has been for years.
You can't say they shouldn't help RIAA enforce their copyright by booting you off your connection for P2P, then turn around and say they should police people for spam. They're common carriers; It means they're not responsible, nor should they be. If we start down this road, the internet as we know it ends.
1) I never mentioned P2P or any of that crap but if I violate my ISP's terms of use they are free to cut me off
2) ISPs are NOT common carriers, educate yourself
3) They ARE responsible insofar as their provider's acceptible use policy is concerned. Violate it and get cut off.
Citation needed.
Wow, how long HAVE you been on the internet anyway?
Look, the solution here is laws not vigilantism...
Law: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (among others) makes infecting systems to be part of a botnet a felony. Also things like the CAN-SPAM Act have criminalized SPAM. There are laws, but getting anyone caught and prosecuted when the are sitting in the middle of the Ukraine is kindof difficult.
Because the simple truth is no matter how good you are sooner or later you're going to fuck it up.
Not if all you are doing is telling a provider to "look over there" and they check it out and only act on it if what you say true.
The law ensures that when this happens, there's recourse. A vigilante will just disappear into the night with the words "I'm sorry" on his/her lips. And not only that, but the entire tone of your response rather underscores the need to get emotion out of this situation and the justice system is far better suited to this than your "Let's get a posse together and ride" solution.
The law does no such thing when the perpetrators are outside its jurisdiction. And there are no vigilantes as everything was done within the bounds of the law. Your ignorance is astounding. The tone of my respons
And if it's not against the law right over the border?
Also, I should point out you ran with the hypothetical instead of reverting to the car analogy.
1. I don't have a solution, I'm just considering the ethical aspect.
What is unethical about pointing out MASSIVE violation of terms of service by an ISP to their provider? The ISP has a duty to obey the terms they agreed to, and if it can't or won't it gets cut off. Just like you or I would get cut off by our upstream for violating whatever agreement we may have in place.
2. I'd rather deal with spam, malware, and con artists clogging the internet than vigilantes blowing holes in it.
Considering the sheer cost of cleaning up this bullshit, I doubt many share the same opinion. And the intenet was designed to route around holes in it. Theoretically at least.
3. As to who's protecting them -- it's not a question of who but what. In this case, economics.
No. There are definately quite a few "who"s in this mix. Like the greedy bastards who look the other way while their customers commit felonies. They are accessories to the crimes of their clients if they don't cut them off for their criminal bullshit.
4. It has taken this long because until now people were restrained by ethical considerations prevalent within the community. However, a certain moral flexibility seems to be developing now out of frustration. This can only end badly.
Are you kidding? People have been black-holed for decades on the internet for stuff like this.
WHERE IS THE ETHICAL ISSUE WITH TELLING A PROVIDER THAT THEIR CLIENTS ARE IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THEIR ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY????
Or worse.
Either they need to act on it when its pointed out or they will find themselves having to screen their traffic for content because of some cockamamy law passed because they were KNOWINGLY looking the other way while the sold space to kiddy-porn traders after numerous people pointed it out.
And when your drug-dealer neighbors are right over the border outside your PD's jurisdiction and the other PD has no interest in pursuing it?
To continue the analogy.
Stay away from my guns though. I reserve every right to carry them around in public.
Hey you never know then you'll be subjected to another Battlefield Earth or Ishtar and want to take the easy way out.
I like this one better:
1. Send husband's hard-earned money to his own foreign account while he scams you
2. Ignore warnings and claim you're helping a Nigerian prince
3. Play victim and make it public, sell book/movie rights
4. Divorce husband and move away
5. Turn up dead somewhere while hubby collects on MASSIVE insurance policy
6. Profit!
Great, something else for that Moreau kid down the block to get into....
Actually, the natural immunity can largely be traced back to small populations in europe that had very large survival rates during the Black Death in the middle ages. The immunity was likely present prior to HIV's emergence.
This was not an inate thing, it was developed over time. Learning to pick out specific sounds from background noise, learning not to be distracted by peripheral movement or sudden noises, tracking an objects movement even while it is obscured. I also taught myself to do the opposite and observe the totality of a scene, and am far less likely to fall prey to tunnel vision, etc.
I don't see this as any different than learning to judge distances or speeds (which most people can't).
The point being, I wasn't doing this as a kid, I LEARNED to do it. It's not actually very difficult. I just think that the majority of people don't think about how to use their senses. Or bother to learn.
Yeah that inexperienced thing is patently retarded. He has about the same level of experience as Kennedy and more importantly, he's intelligent enought to surround himself with good advisors rather than sycophants and criminals.
Well honestly what can you expect, when the last band of idiots was allowed to run up a 7 trillion dollar deficit? SOMEONE is going to have to pay that off.
So because I have the ability to fine-tune and hone my senses I have a disorder now?
Yeah, I will look at it, assess that it doesn't need my attention, and proceed to disregard its visual and audio squawking.
Its a box with noise and motion, nothing more.
This is something I have NEVER been able to understand. I have always been able to filter out or ignore just about anything I feel like. I can pick out an individual conversation from several feet away in a crowded bar, TVs or radios don't bother me, I just tune them out.
I just don't quite get how seemingly everyone else CAN'T do this.
In other words, it's for getting your face punched. ;)
Hah. I've been managing that for years without the aid of technology.
Luddite.
bwa ha ha.... my Coffee-B-Gone works!
OK, now THAT little device is definately going to lead to bloodshed. :)
So it's down to democracy in the end; let Diebold decide.
Every time I see "Diebold" I still think ATMs, and oddly, that seems to make your comment even more insightful.
My personal (and I can't speak for Mitch)
take is that tv-b-gone is supposed to be an equalizer,
yes it annoys other people but then your annoyed by TV.
I'm more annoyed that people constantly spout stupidity just about 24/7 but I have no right to forcibly shut them up.
Its NOT your TV. Its NOT your PROPERTY. Leave if you don't like it. Or maybe here's a thought, ASK the propriator if they'll turn it off, down, etc.