Any office where you're worried about standardised mobile devices should already have a patch panel, managed switches, a real router and if they have wi-fi at all non-consumer grade wifi access points (cisco or similar). If you're too small to have/need managed switches and VLAN's frankly you're just playing at being "enterprise". Anyway, it is often easy to support them without allowing them onto the LAN, the server active sync needs to connect to is the usually same one that provides outlook web access and done on the same IIS instance.
But "LAN" security is only half of it. The DATA on the device is the most valuable, and most vulnerable part of it of the equation. And this risk multiplies exponentially the higher up the organization chart you go. The network security portion is only part of the concern... Even if you "just" let them use ActiveSync so SpecialSnowflake can connect his iPadroidreo and sync his mailbox, you're taking an ENORMOUS risk.
Also, the repeated assertions (by various people, not just you) that the ActiveSync "remote-wipe" function is the panacea to all these problems is magical thinking, because it isn't 100% effective.
In fact, there are some pretty hard-and-fast (easily circumvented by nefarious parties intending to do harm) requirements for ActiveSyncs "self-destruct" feature to work on a device... 1) The SIM Card must still be mated to the device. 2) The device's radio must be turned on to receive the "self-destruct" command. 3) SpecialSnowflake understands how important it is to report his lost/stolen mobile device to the Exchange admin so he can trigger the "self-destruct" feature. Remember, your network admin isn't sitting over your shoulder 24x7 like Jiminy Cricket. 8x5 M-F, sure, but even we need time off.
Finally, I think you may be underestimating just how many "bigger" businesses aren't following anything even remotely approaching "best-practices" on their networks. As a consultant, I've walked into networks that support a few thousand people that used un-managed switches, Linksys WiFi, and WEP Security to think anything else. Or "all devices including datacenter and wireless on one subnet." If you have never seen it, you haven't been doing this for very long, or you've been extremely picky and lucky about where you work.
Should those IT people be fired? Maybe--but in a lot of cases they're like that because all of the "experts" were already fired in the last salary purge, and their replacements bought "what fit the budget."
Which, FYI, even if you already own every single piece of equipment, have it all properly licensed to execute your perfect BYOD for SpecialSnowflake environment it STILL costs money to have somebody configure these devices. Even if you ahve a full-time staff you're "already paying" because, of course, your company can't assign you to anything else while you're spending a few weeks re-engineering your whole network. And if your company is like most companies these days there is exactly ZERO slack in the IT department to handle these tasks....Which leads to expensive, $150/hr contracts to bring in yours truly to do it for you, document it, and leave....Then when your skeleton crew can't manage it, you sign a managed services contract with me and I manage it. All to the tune of thousands of dollars up front, and many hundreds or thousands monthly thereafter, at least until the next fad comes along and they decide to waste their money on that.
99% of apple users couldn't care less and most of them don't even know their OS is a version of unix.
True, but not as important as you think. The real-deal is that Apple's embrace of Unix led directly to a mountain of software developers taking interest in Mac OS X. Lock them out, or lock them into purely "sandboxed" applications, or bureaucrat them to death by refusing to "allow" their new-apps to integrate with "certain things" at random, and that development will wither on the vine.
Ironically, by "walling off" Mac OS X users from non-App Store apps they would accomplish what Microsoft, Linux, and any number of other competitors have attempted: To kill off interest in Macs.
You should consider getting a girlfriend, and if you already have one, consider going to the gym so you can get a hotter one and we don't need to read you fanboi whining. We get it: You like Siri. I think it's a tool for simpletons and morons who haven't figured out how to google "Locksmiths" and their zip code yet.
And the "5% useful for driving and jogging" is bullshit. You shouldn't be using your phone during EITHER of those activities. In fact, that's a pretty good rule of thumb if you have any notion of self-preservation whatsoever:
"If you CAN'T interact with your phone while you're doing something else, you SHOULDN'T be interacting with your phone while doing that."
Like many intelligent folks, you've missed the point.
Your assertion, that a competent admin with a complement of appropriately selected hardware and software could safely allow a great many consumerish devices on his network relatively safely, is totally correct. But misses the point that 1) Not all companies will spend the money for appropriate switching, firewall, and security tools such that an admin can accomplish these goals. Because, regardless of skill level if the device doesn't do it, it doesn't do it. and 2) That the added workload on your already overworked admin (who, if he's still employed, is probably on a much smaller team than he used to be, or all alone) might be enough that the company HAS to add another administrator, which means the company is incurring a massive expense for additional personnel in a down-economy solely so the special snowflake crybabies can look at fucking Facebook using your WiFi on their plastic penis-extenders..
What business benefit do we get from working through these machinations for our users? And BUSINESS BENEFIT means measurable, quantifiable contribution to PROFIT. Not.commer b.s. about feelings: MONEY. How does my company benefit from Special Snowflake's iPadroidreo in a way that it couldn't (more cheaply) by buying same user a standardized mobile device?
Sure do, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac....oh wait, those are federal
Or, at least, they are today. But it was greedlust by their executives when they were non-government entities, operating as publicly traded corporations.
It's funny how that detail gets lost on every person that wants to blame the housing and mortgage crisis on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, since it's easily the most important detail. Decades and decades of Fannie and Freddie as government organizations, they get operated responsibly, making safe loans with all T's crossed, all I's dotted. A brief period as private-companies, followed by IPOs, and they suddenly have executives salivating at the prospect of getting paid massive, lavish bonuses for "increasing profits at any cost."
Seriously, it took a handful of years for Fannie and Freddie to become as crooked as the rest of Wall Street, and your conclusion is that it's "all the governent's fault"? Come on.
of course it would be on the open market, however it adds competition and as such the prices would fall.
Pure fantasy. Absolute fantasy.
If we ramped up our production to a point where it would make a dent in oil or gasoline prices two things would happen almost instantly:
1) OPEC would immediately cut their production to "maintain" the price of oil. Since they have a fuck-ton more oil than we do, and can cut production exponentially faster than we can ramp it up, this would auto-magically neutralize and advantage we get from "growing our own" as it were. And while OPEC would eventually have to decide between A) Cutting production so far it screws up their financial plans or B) Inflating the price of oil, it would be a long period of time.
2) Even if OPEC weren't a factor, the speculators are (in many ways) an even bigger problem than OPEC, but for the same reason: They can use trillions of dollars of assets from other people (i.e. not their own money) to speculate on oil and drive the price into the stratosphere. (Or further into the stratosphere, as it were.) And since speculators can drive up the price faster than we can drive-up production, unless we somehow magically ramped-up production and kept every commodities trader on earth from finding out about it (good luck! It's their job to know,) the speculation would likewise negate any benefits from "drill baby drill."...And we'd have ruined and polluted the areas where we drill, where we transport, and where we store oil, and be stuck with all the costs of cleaning that up AND have not saved a solitary nickel on oil or gasoline, and in fact, probably would end up paying more.
Our choices are 1) Conquer all of OPEC instantly, overnight, 2) Kill all the speculators, 3) Establish world-wide good-will so OPEC countries don't feel compelled to drive up the price of oil to their own interest or, 4)Find another source of energy.
No idea what he's talking about... a cursory Google search reveals that provision has been made to revoke certificates, so presumably he's making some larger point about something else....Damned if I know what that is, though. But I do follow the Convergence project and am testing out the browser plug-in... If Moxie reads Slashdot and sees this: Would you care to expound on the quoted Tweet?
I demand that our government immediately convene a blue-ribbon commission to survey and understand the cyber-security of Owls. It is long-past time for our government to recognize this clear and present attack vector. Imagine the carnage: Terrorists take control of owls and deafen us with incessant daytime hooting. Or disrupt our sleep with all-night hooting. Or just crap all over our cars and cost us millions in extra car-washes.
Sadly, it was destroyed during an accidental "mooning" maneuver the Earth was trying to direct at Venus over some perceived sleight from the previous drunken weekend at the Solar System Club*.
This comes up every couple years when there's a new doo-hickey-thing-a-ma-bob released (now with Sprinkles!) and the users of the world clamor for it.
When IT insists these devices be vetted for "security and compatibility" they're accused of "foot-dragging, turf-protection, and ivory-tower arrogance!" If they just allow people to use anything and there's a security breach IT is blamed for being "lax about security." The classic Kobayashi Maru "No-win scenario" for the IT admin.
Your best hope is to state your case as eloquently and non-emotionally as you can, and if they still want to be on the bleeding edge get them sign a waiver that says they:
1) They acknowledge they are potentially opening serious security holes in the network. 2) They acknowledge those holes could potentially represent hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in losses due-to potential compromise of proprietary business data. 3) They acknowledge that they are disregarding advice to the contrary from you, an expert in a position to know what's best by proceeding, and agree they alone are responsible for the decision. 4) They agree if they subsequently decide to fire or discipline you for any reason whatsoever (including bankruptcy caused by security breach lawsuits) your severance pay is 20 years salary. In the old days you'd probably just accept the provision "fired or disciplined because of this decision" but since corporate HR sleaze knows no bounds, you can guarantee any firing over this would be over "the time you didn't turn the coffee-pot off" or some such nonsense as a means of weaseling out of paying.
Get it signed in writing (hard-copy, on paper,) file a copy with HR, corporate counsel, and the like, and keep your copy at your lawyer's office. If there is every any problem you've got your insurance policy. The 20 years salary is designed to discourage making you the scapegoat for the problem, and if they do, to provide for your family since your security career would likely be effectively over at that point.
Oracle seems intent to milk other companies for "passive" revenue instead of continuing to innovate. They've added "lawsuit trolling" to their business model. Congratulations--your company has completed its transformation from industry-dominating innovator to a complete-joke.
Nothing about doing the work-for-hire means that the company could exclude you from the rights afforded all others in the open source license.
So true, they can't stop him from forking the latest version they (he) released as open-source. However, I think the guy is more pissed-off about them claiming ownership of the original copyrights to the code and is indignant about having to fork his own software when the "employer" may not actually be an "employer" and so doesn't by default own the copyright to his work. According to the linked posting the OP was a 1099 "perma-temp" and didn't sign any documents relinquishing copyright on his code.
This is a non-trivial point: Companies take an expansive view of "their-time" when it comes to their actual W-2 employees, and the courts have, sadly, tended to side with businesses taking ideas from employees who moonlight as brilliant entrepreneurs on the side.
However, these companies are very careful about not characterizing outside contractors as "employees"--making each "perma-temp" sign a document acknowledging they are NOT an employee of the company and don't have the same rights as employees, and by not paying them "employee benefits" like health care and retirement, as examples. They can't then turn around and argue "Oh, but even though he's not an employee, we own all his code written at home on his own machine because he's a "full-time" employee and therefore all of his thoughts belong to us.
Well, I wouldn't expect free cars working at a factory either, but clicking through to his blog and responses reveals that he's a 1099 perma-temp (or was) and did the work on his own-time at home. Unless he signed something, he's probably got a right to his own home-brew code. In some cases, he may own a share (or all) of the copyright of the code he wrote as a 1099 "perma-temp" as well: Some consultants and consulting firms will quote two prices. The "We retain copyright" price is significantly lower than the "You're buying the copyright and own all code lock-stock-and-barrel" license, which will typically represent whatever the firm thinks they'll lose in long-term dollars on the project by no longer having the right to sell this product to somebody else later.
Unless he's lying about not signing anything, this dude probably has a case with a lawyer competent in similar cases and case-law.
A shark. The sort of guy that makes lesser lawyers wet their pants in fear. Seriously.
With that said: If you worked in the United States and were paid on a W-2 you're basically fucked. Unless you can prove every single keystroke of development on this product was done on "your time" with your own equipment it's almost certainly a work-for-hire under U.S. law, and therefore they own the code, not you.
On the other hand, if you were a 1099 "perma-temp," or selling your services to them as a corporation (i.e. a corp-to-corp arrangement) then who owns the code is an entirely different matter. In that scenario, you would need to look at your contract with them (you did sign a contract, right?) to determine whether you "own" the code you wrote for them. Generally speaking if you're not an employee (and you didn't sign anything giving them rights to your code) then you still own it.
If you live in another country then I have no idea what you should do. Good luck, though. Hate to see people ripped-off by their employer. What this really should be is an object lesson in why any coder with even moderate skill should be insisting on corp-to-corp arrangements. It's extra paperwork for you, and a PITA at tax-time, but if you invent something really revolutionary it's one of the only ways to keep your employer from stealing your idea under the "Work-for-hire" provisions of copyright law.
Hasn't worked to date... How much more expensive would gas have to be before we stop seeing one-person-occupied SUVs? $5/gal? $10/gal? And how many people would lose their jobs and livelihood if we did that? All so the one-man-in-an-SUV commuters can barrel along at 80mph getting 7mpg.
Put more generally, why should everybody else get their wallets eviscerated to save the environment when the problem isn't the price gas but that we manufacture cars that get shitty mileage? Since next years model is automatically more expensive than this year, even without any changes, why should we also jack up the price of the consumable it uses when we could just raise fuel-economy standards like... every other country on the face of the planet, for example, and move on with our lives?
You'll still be able to get a car that's "bigger than everybody else's," it'll just have to be more efficient....And not even that much more efficient, since the way fuel economy standards have worked to date is that whenever they get raised, GM/Ford/Chrysler manage to squeeze a few more MPG out of their gas-hogs, and then come out with new, more efficient models to balance out the hogs.
It would restrict your personal "freedom" to destroy the environment but after numerous re-reads of the constitution, I can't actually find that right anywhere in there.
And I also would like to sell you this bridge I recently acquired in Brooklyn. It's totally not the right time for me to be owning a bridge.
But seriously, who is going to trust this system? It creates an enormous incentive for intelligence agencies to infiltrate as many major ISPs as they have to in order to capture the traffic and/or compromise the keys--if they haven't already infiltrated the project to parallel develop a compromised version of the product that feeds the keys straight to the CIA so that their own "station" can intercept and decode "secret" messages. It would also create an enormous incentive for, say, an enterprising President to sell/trade data to our allies and/or creditors, in effect selling out freedom fighters.
They have to--power abhors anonymity. If they don't know whom to destroy, it makes the power they have useless.
Funny, I've used dozens of them in my home since they became available, and I've had a sum total of ZERO fail to date....But I didn't buy "Discount Bob" brand light-bulbs, either.
With CFLs, the quality is at the top-end. The low-end bulbs are garbage, and not worth using even if they're free.
Maybe they should get jobs making light-bulbs at companies that make efficient bulbs?
Or at any of the "heat lamp" companies that are springing up to sell incandescent "heat-lamps" that have a side-effect of giving off light.
Any "jobs saved!" by this bill will be offset by the cost of caring for the cancers caused by the increased mercury emissions the less-efficient bulbs will lead to. How many dozen coal-plants won't have to be built without incandescent bulbs? How many with?
Slashdot Mirror
But "LAN" security is only half of it. The DATA on the device is the most valuable, and most vulnerable part of it of the equation. And this risk multiplies exponentially the higher up the organization chart you go. The network security portion is only part of the concern... Even if you "just" let them use ActiveSync so SpecialSnowflake can connect his iPadroidreo and sync his mailbox, you're taking an ENORMOUS risk.
Also, the repeated assertions (by various people, not just you) that the ActiveSync "remote-wipe" function is the panacea to all these problems is magical thinking, because it isn't 100% effective.
In fact, there are some pretty hard-and-fast (easily circumvented by nefarious parties intending to do harm) requirements for ActiveSyncs "self-destruct" feature to work on a device...
1) The SIM Card must still be mated to the device.
2) The device's radio must be turned on to receive the "self-destruct" command.
3) SpecialSnowflake understands how important it is to report his lost/stolen mobile device to the Exchange admin so he can trigger the "self-destruct" feature. Remember, your network admin isn't sitting over your shoulder 24x7 like Jiminy Cricket. 8x5 M-F, sure, but even we need time off.
Finally, I think you may be underestimating just how many "bigger" businesses aren't following anything even remotely approaching "best-practices" on their networks. As a consultant, I've walked into networks that support a few thousand people that used un-managed switches, Linksys WiFi, and WEP Security to think anything else. Or "all devices including datacenter and wireless on one subnet." If you have never seen it, you haven't been doing this for very long, or you've been extremely picky and lucky about where you work.
Should those IT people be fired? Maybe--but in a lot of cases they're like that because all of the "experts" were already fired in the last salary purge, and their replacements bought "what fit the budget."
Which, FYI, even if you already own every single piece of equipment, have it all properly licensed to execute your perfect BYOD for SpecialSnowflake environment it STILL costs money to have somebody configure these devices. Even if you ahve a full-time staff you're "already paying" because, of course, your company can't assign you to anything else while you're spending a few weeks re-engineering your whole network. And if your company is like most companies these days there is exactly ZERO slack in the IT department to handle these tasks. ...Which leads to expensive, $150/hr contracts to bring in yours truly to do it for you, document it, and leave. ...Then when your skeleton crew can't manage it, you sign a managed services contract with me and I manage it. All to the tune of thousands of dollars up front, and many hundreds or thousands monthly thereafter, at least until the next fad comes along and they decide to waste their money on that.
True, but not as important as you think. The real-deal is that Apple's embrace of Unix led directly to a mountain of software developers taking interest in Mac OS X. Lock them out, or lock them into purely "sandboxed" applications, or bureaucrat them to death by refusing to "allow" their new-apps to integrate with "certain things" at random, and that development will wither on the vine.
Ironically, by "walling off" Mac OS X users from non-App Store apps they would accomplish what Microsoft, Linux, and any number of other competitors have attempted: To kill off interest in Macs.
You should consider getting a girlfriend, and if you already have one, consider going to the gym so you can get a hotter one and we don't need to read you fanboi whining. We get it: You like Siri. I think it's a tool for simpletons and morons who haven't figured out how to google "Locksmiths" and their zip code yet.
And the "5% useful for driving and jogging" is bullshit. You shouldn't be using your phone during EITHER of those activities. In fact, that's a pretty good rule of thumb if you have any notion of self-preservation whatsoever:
"If you CAN'T interact with your phone while you're doing something else, you SHOULDN'T be interacting with your phone while doing that."
Like many intelligent folks, you've missed the point.
Your assertion, that a competent admin with a complement of appropriately selected hardware and software could safely allow a great many consumerish devices on his network relatively safely, is totally correct. But misses the point that 1) Not all companies will spend the money for appropriate switching, firewall, and security tools such that an admin can accomplish these goals. Because, regardless of skill level if the device doesn't do it, it doesn't do it. and 2) That the added workload on your already overworked admin (who, if he's still employed, is probably on a much smaller team than he used to be, or all alone) might be enough that the company HAS to add another administrator, which means the company is incurring a massive expense for additional personnel in a down-economy solely so the special snowflake crybabies can look at fucking Facebook using your WiFi on their plastic penis-extenders..
What business benefit do we get from working through these machinations for our users? And BUSINESS BENEFIT means measurable, quantifiable contribution to PROFIT. Not .commer b.s. about feelings: MONEY. How does my company benefit from Special Snowflake's iPadroidreo in a way that it couldn't (more cheaply) by buying same user a standardized mobile device?
Sure do, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac....oh wait, those are federal
Or, at least, they are today. But it was greedlust by their executives when they were non-government entities, operating as publicly traded corporations.
It's funny how that detail gets lost on every person that wants to blame the housing and mortgage crisis on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, since it's easily the most important detail. Decades and decades of Fannie and Freddie as government organizations, they get operated responsibly, making safe loans with all T's crossed, all I's dotted. A brief period as private-companies, followed by IPOs, and they suddenly have executives salivating at the prospect of getting paid massive, lavish bonuses for "increasing profits at any cost."
Seriously, it took a handful of years for Fannie and Freddie to become as crooked as the rest of Wall Street, and your conclusion is that it's "all the governent's fault"? Come on.
of course it would be on the open market, however it adds competition and as such the prices would fall.
Pure fantasy. Absolute fantasy.
If we ramped up our production to a point where it would make a dent in oil or gasoline prices two things would happen almost instantly:
1) OPEC would immediately cut their production to "maintain" the price of oil. Since they have a fuck-ton more oil than we do, and can cut production exponentially faster than we can ramp it up, this would auto-magically neutralize and advantage we get from "growing our own" as it were. And while OPEC would eventually have to decide between A) Cutting production so far it screws up their financial plans or B) Inflating the price of oil, it would be a long period of time.
2) Even if OPEC weren't a factor, the speculators are (in many ways) an even bigger problem than OPEC, but for the same reason: They can use trillions of dollars of assets from other people (i.e. not their own money) to speculate on oil and drive the price into the stratosphere. (Or further into the stratosphere, as it were.) And since speculators can drive up the price faster than we can drive-up production, unless we somehow magically ramped-up production and kept every commodities trader on earth from finding out about it (good luck! It's their job to know,) the speculation would likewise negate any benefits from "drill baby drill." ...And we'd have ruined and polluted the areas where we drill, where we transport, and where we store oil, and be stuck with all the costs of cleaning that up AND have not saved a solitary nickel on oil or gasoline, and in fact, probably would end up paying more.
Our choices are 1) Conquer all of OPEC instantly, overnight, 2) Kill all the speculators, 3) Establish world-wide good-will so OPEC countries don't feel compelled to drive up the price of oil to their own interest or, 4)Find another source of energy.
No idea what he's talking about... a cursory Google search reveals that provision has been made to revoke certificates, so presumably he's making some larger point about something else. ...Damned if I know what that is, though. But I do follow the Convergence project and am testing out the browser plug-in... If Moxie reads Slashdot and sees this: Would you care to expound on the quoted Tweet?
Couldn't agree more. Links for the lazy: Convergence and Perspectives.
Enjoy.
Honest, boss, I wasn't on goat.sx it was a one-armed Chinese man with an eye-patch!
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, gang.
"Lisa, I want to buy your rock."
With apologies to Homer Simpson...
I demand that our government immediately convene a blue-ribbon commission to survey and understand the cyber-security of Owls. It is long-past time for our government to recognize this clear and present attack vector. Imagine the carnage: Terrorists take control of owls and deafen us with incessant daytime hooting. Or disrupt our sleep with all-night hooting. Or just crap all over our cars and cost us millions in extra car-washes.
Sadly, it was destroyed during an accidental "mooning" maneuver the Earth was trying to direct at Venus over some perceived sleight from the previous drunken weekend at the Solar System Club*.
*Membership required.
This comes up every couple years when there's a new doo-hickey-thing-a-ma-bob released (now with Sprinkles!) and the users of the world clamor for it.
When IT insists these devices be vetted for "security and compatibility" they're accused of "foot-dragging, turf-protection, and ivory-tower arrogance!" If they just allow people to use anything and there's a security breach IT is blamed for being "lax about security." The classic Kobayashi Maru "No-win scenario" for the IT admin.
Your best hope is to state your case as eloquently and non-emotionally as you can, and if they still want to be on the bleeding edge get them sign a waiver that says they:
1) They acknowledge they are potentially opening serious security holes in the network.
2) They acknowledge those holes could potentially represent hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in losses due-to potential compromise of proprietary business data.
3) They acknowledge that they are disregarding advice to the contrary from you, an expert in a position to know what's best by proceeding, and agree they alone are responsible for the decision.
4) They agree if they subsequently decide to fire or discipline you for any reason whatsoever (including bankruptcy caused by security breach lawsuits) your severance pay is 20 years salary. In the old days you'd probably just accept the provision "fired or disciplined because of this decision" but since corporate HR sleaze knows no bounds, you can guarantee any firing over this would be over "the time you didn't turn the coffee-pot off" or some such nonsense as a means of weaseling out of paying.
Get it signed in writing (hard-copy, on paper,) file a copy with HR, corporate counsel, and the like, and keep your copy at your lawyer's office. If there is every any problem you've got your insurance policy. The 20 years salary is designed to discourage making you the scapegoat for the problem, and if they do, to provide for your family since your security career would likely be effectively over at that point.
Oracle seems intent to milk other companies for "passive" revenue instead of continuing to innovate. They've added "lawsuit trolling" to their business model. Congratulations--your company has completed its transformation from industry-dominating innovator to a complete-joke.
Sure, I wouldn't take legal advice from a dude named "Cocknozzle" either.
So true, they can't stop him from forking the latest version they (he) released as open-source. However, I think the guy is more pissed-off about them claiming ownership of the original copyrights to the code and is indignant about having to fork his own software when the "employer" may not actually be an "employer" and so doesn't by default own the copyright to his work. According to the linked posting the OP was a 1099 "perma-temp" and didn't sign any documents relinquishing copyright on his code.
This is a non-trivial point: Companies take an expansive view of "their-time" when it comes to their actual W-2 employees, and the courts have, sadly, tended to side with businesses taking ideas from employees who moonlight as brilliant entrepreneurs on the side.
However, these companies are very careful about not characterizing outside contractors as "employees"--making each "perma-temp" sign a document acknowledging they are NOT an employee of the company and don't have the same rights as employees, and by not paying them "employee benefits" like health care and retirement, as examples. They can't then turn around and argue "Oh, but even though he's not an employee, we own all his code written at home on his own machine because he's a "full-time" employee and therefore all of his thoughts belong to us.
Well, I wouldn't expect free cars working at a factory either, but clicking through to his blog and responses reveals that he's a 1099 perma-temp (or was) and did the work on his own-time at home. Unless he signed something, he's probably got a right to his own home-brew code. In some cases, he may own a share (or all) of the copyright of the code he wrote as a 1099 "perma-temp" as well: Some consultants and consulting firms will quote two prices. The "We retain copyright" price is significantly lower than the "You're buying the copyright and own all code lock-stock-and-barrel" license, which will typically represent whatever the firm thinks they'll lose in long-term dollars on the project by no longer having the right to sell this product to somebody else later.
Unless he's lying about not signing anything, this dude probably has a case with a lawyer competent in similar cases and case-law.
A shark. The sort of guy that makes lesser lawyers wet their pants in fear. Seriously.
With that said: If you worked in the United States and were paid on a W-2 you're basically fucked. Unless you can prove every single keystroke of development on this product was done on "your time" with your own equipment it's almost certainly a work-for-hire under U.S. law, and therefore they own the code, not you.
On the other hand, if you were a 1099 "perma-temp," or selling your services to them as a corporation (i.e. a corp-to-corp arrangement) then who owns the code is an entirely different matter. In that scenario, you would need to look at your contract with them (you did sign a contract, right?) to determine whether you "own" the code you wrote for them. Generally speaking if you're not an employee (and you didn't sign anything giving them rights to your code) then you still own it.
If you live in another country then I have no idea what you should do. Good luck, though. Hate to see people ripped-off by their employer. What this really should be is an object lesson in why any coder with even moderate skill should be insisting on corp-to-corp arrangements. It's extra paperwork for you, and a PITA at tax-time, but if you invent something really revolutionary it's one of the only ways to keep your employer from stealing your idea under the "Work-for-hire" provisions of copyright law.
Of course, as always, IANALBIPOOS.
Hasn't worked to date... How much more expensive would gas have to be before we stop seeing one-person-occupied SUVs? $5/gal? $10/gal? And how many people would lose their jobs and livelihood if we did that? All so the one-man-in-an-SUV commuters can barrel along at 80mph getting 7mpg.
Put more generally, why should everybody else get their wallets eviscerated to save the environment when the problem isn't the price gas but that we manufacture cars that get shitty mileage? Since next years model is automatically more expensive than this year, even without any changes, why should we also jack up the price of the consumable it uses when we could just raise fuel-economy standards like... every other country on the face of the planet, for example, and move on with our lives?
You'll still be able to get a car that's "bigger than everybody else's," it'll just have to be more efficient. ...And not even that much more efficient, since the way fuel economy standards have worked to date is that whenever they get raised, GM/Ford/Chrysler manage to squeeze a few more MPG out of their gas-hogs, and then come out with new, more efficient models to balance out the hogs.
It would restrict your personal "freedom" to destroy the environment but after numerous re-reads of the constitution, I can't actually find that right anywhere in there.
When I saw that the IOS 4.3.4 Un-jailbreakable! story was still on the front page when this came out. And remains there as of this writing.
I wish there was a moderation type called "You're reading my mind."
And I also would like to sell you this bridge I recently acquired in Brooklyn. It's totally not the right time for me to be owning a bridge.
But seriously, who is going to trust this system? It creates an enormous incentive for intelligence agencies to infiltrate as many major ISPs as they have to in order to capture the traffic and/or compromise the keys--if they haven't already infiltrated the project to parallel develop a compromised version of the product that feeds the keys straight to the CIA so that their own "station" can intercept and decode "secret" messages. It would also create an enormous incentive for, say, an enterprising President to sell/trade data to our allies and/or creditors, in effect selling out freedom fighters.
They have to--power abhors anonymity. If they don't know whom to destroy, it makes the power they have useless.
Funny, I've used dozens of them in my home since they became available, and I've had a sum total of ZERO fail to date. ...But I didn't buy "Discount Bob" brand light-bulbs, either.
With CFLs, the quality is at the top-end. The low-end bulbs are garbage, and not worth using even if they're free.
Maybe they should get jobs making light-bulbs at companies that make efficient bulbs?
Or at any of the "heat lamp" companies that are springing up to sell incandescent "heat-lamps" that have a side-effect of giving off light.
Any "jobs saved!" by this bill will be offset by the cost of caring for the cancers caused by the increased mercury emissions the less-efficient bulbs will lead to. How many dozen coal-plants won't have to be built without incandescent bulbs? How many with?
This is as close to a modern version of "fiddling while Rome burns."
Glad to see they're not wasting their time on silly things like the budget.