This is not how you deal with an incident like this. You have to reexamine your infrastructure and find out *why* that info was on an endpoint to begin with. This is teh same BS kneejerk reaction that makes for bad IT planning. Just go and wallpaper of it with a band-aid and look all betterer.
Because its not about data access. its about keeping users from installing all level of crap on the machines. If you have already given a user access to patient data, then they have signed the forms for responsible use of that data.
The technical issues that cause this are "easy" to remedy. You don't allow people to use the instrument to have administrator access. A good portion of applications can be remediated to work in a low privileged environment via file system ACLs. Those that cannot need to be network isolated and stripped down to the bare essentials needed to do the task it is for. *These are technical steps*
Administrative steps to take is to demand that the outside vendors don't get to dictate your network policies. Frankly in a hospital you can go all HIPPA on their asses.
To give an anecdote, we had a vendor who delivered an instrument, for with the edict was that *NO* settings could be changed. They shipped it with a manually configured IP of an ISP in Germany. Presumably they wanted us to buy the IP block to get it on the network.
Like it or not, it is not unreasonable to unify their policies. This idea to break it up again seems the wrong track, address what you don't like about the over arching policy, as presumably any new services will come under that.
In response to Saudi Arabia, I would recommended that all religious people and all religion content be removed from the internet. Reactionary, close minded ideology is clearly incompatible with this fast paced open medium. I'll be better for all of us if we take a bold step and separate them.
A computer has no will, and thus cannot 'forcibly' have anything done to it, except in the sense that *everything* is done by force, as a computer has no self volition to do anything.
I don't see that word in the article. Has this headline been editorialized?
I was told once by the cable crew who came to fix my cable, that because of squirrels eating at the cable, water had leaked in. As it was a 3 pole run,, some stupid amount of *gallons* of water poured out of the cable.
I really want to make a bunch of personal comments, but lets skip that for the moment.. I'd like to bring to your attention at least this one detail..
"The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything....A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million "
Your assertion that somehow juries are some kind of paragons of perfection is incorrect. The fact that they could not get simple things like "not infringing" = "no damages" right is a clear indication they did sloppy work, did not understand/did not follow the instructions, or directly ignored them. This is the behavior you are arguing is the inviolate will of the jury.
What about a sign make assault acceptable? Perhaps if the persons in question didn't want to be seen my someone else, they should return to their caves. This behavior is indicative of people who only deserve to live in a cave, and do not have a place in modern society.
PS : I guess blind people in France will have to remain blind if they don't want to run the risk of being beaten to death.
I think you may be onto something deeper than you may expect. I am becoming to believe that this behavior is really a side effect of our runaway copyright/trademark/patent system, but also the nature of statutes.
No reasonable person would accept 'book' as a copyright/mark. The word as it stands alone is indicative of anything specific. But since the bounds on in this ears seem to be keep getting stretched and morphed, as well as less than stellar protections for individual/fair use, this is what to expect.
However, the pitfall of statute is that if you leave the language too broad you catch things you didn't intend, if you iterate every possibility you can think of there are always loopholes. There is a reason why many statutes are 'vague', and why we have a judicial system, but its a mess either way.
That being said, I really would like to see tome tightening up of both law and legal action on unethical/illegal clauses in user agreements. Perhaps with some penalties. If a clause is generally known prohibit legal action, and that action is a right that cannot be waived, then putting it in an agreement should carry a penalty for attempt to defraud.
I'm glad you asked, and I didnt go and put this in the first post as to not get off course.
It's not going to end. I predicted 'this' pretty much a decade ago. Any company who chose to get in bed with the media companies and start to proactively 'censor' would soon run into the gaping maw of corporate greed and be faced with 'you aren't doing enough'. Sadly, it's worse and will be worse. The media monsters want carte-blanche to expunge anything they deem damaging to their failing business model (rightly or wrongly). And even if you were to sue google and the media companies, they would just demand the laws get rewritten to allow them to get away with it based on some meaningless threshold that wont even amount to a slap on the wrist. They have already crafted an atmosphere in which 'look ppl we don't care about and end up firing anyway are gonna lose jobs because of blahblahblah.
Its part and parcel of the mindset that bundles boatloads of crap into your cable TV package you don't want, for the 6 things you do, all the time claiming they not only can't do anything about it, and that all the crap you dont want is in fact good for you.
Which would be conspiracy to defraud. Other than your sarcasm, this isn't actually to far from that. Google makes money on false claims, the media company makes money on false claims. They claim it was reviewed. The claim of it being reviewed, and if it not in fact copyrighted, that attaches intent. The counter claim would have to be 'error'. However to go to court and claim error of the reviewers, in the case of birdsong, would be tantamount to claiming abject incompetence, bringing in to question every other alleged review.
Actually I want to clarify. I recall better now that at least the first version of Safari did not have this feature. Later versions did, but it did not work.
IIRC the first 3 major versions of Safari on OS X totally ignored the setting for 'don't allow 3rd party cookies'. I had to file a bug that apple.com was setting these cookies w/ safari.
These assertions are really empty for me personally, since apple's site has partners that set these cookies, and apple's devs couldn't bother to implement this feature right.
Slashdot Mirror
Giraffe.
Are they going to publish it with the incorrect pronunciation that "everyone" says is correct?
Sadly you are right, nature keeps giving us better idiots
NONONNONONONO
This is not how you deal with an incident like this. You have to reexamine your infrastructure and find out *why* that info was on an endpoint to begin with. This is teh same BS kneejerk reaction that makes for bad IT planning. Just go and wallpaper of it with a band-aid and look all betterer.
HULK SMASH!!!!
Please compare to this paper http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0047712
Abstract, methods etc....
My response to the response to Nate Silver
"Math is hard lets go shopping!"
Because its not about data access. its about keeping users from installing all level of crap on the machines. If you have already given a user access to patient data, then they have signed the forms for responsible use of that data.
The technical issues that cause this are "easy" to remedy. You don't allow people to use the instrument to have administrator access. A good portion of applications can be remediated to work in a low privileged environment via file system ACLs. Those that cannot need to be network isolated and stripped down to the bare essentials needed to do the task it is for. *These are technical steps*
Administrative steps to take is to demand that the outside vendors don't get to dictate your network policies. Frankly in a hospital you can go all HIPPA on their asses.
To give an anecdote, we had a vendor who delivered an instrument, for with the edict was that *NO* settings could be changed. They shipped it with a manually configured IP of an ISP in Germany. Presumably they wanted us to buy the IP block to get it on the network.
Like it or not, it is not unreasonable to unify their policies. This idea to break it up again seems the wrong track, address what you don't like about the over arching policy, as presumably any new services will come under that.
In response to Saudi Arabia, I would recommended that all religious people and all religion content be removed from the internet. Reactionary, close minded ideology is clearly incompatible with this fast paced open medium. I'll be better for all of us if we take a bold step and separate them.
A computer has no will, and thus cannot 'forcibly' have anything done to it, except in the sense that *everything* is done by force, as a computer has no self volition to do anything.
I don't see that word in the article. Has this headline been editorialized?
I was told once by the cable crew who came to fix my cable, that because of squirrels eating at the cable, water had leaked in. As it was a 3 pole run,, some stupid amount of *gallons* of water poured out of the cable.
I really want to make a bunch of personal comments, but lets skip that for the moment.. I'd like to bring to your attention at least this one detail..
"The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything....A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million "
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
Your assertion that somehow juries are some kind of paragons of perfection is incorrect. The fact that they could not get simple things like "not infringing" = "no damages" right is a clear indication they did sloppy work, did not understand/did not follow the instructions, or directly ignored them. This is the behavior you are arguing is the inviolate will of the jury.
I'd like to bring this little nugget to all of those commenters who seem to imply "well it says no camreas its his own fault.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/132918-the-laser-powered-bionic-eye-that-gives-576-pixel-grayscale-vision-to-the-blind
What about a sign make assault acceptable? Perhaps if the persons in question didn't want to be seen my someone else, they should return to their caves. This behavior is indicative of people who only deserve to live in a cave, and do not have a place in modern society.
PS : I guess blind people in France will have to remain blind if they don't want to run the risk of being beaten to death.
Apple has ascended beyond learning. Steve taught them that 'not invented here' is a mantra to burn into your soul.
You sir/madam are overly optimistic.
I think you may be onto something deeper than you may expect. I am becoming to believe that this behavior is really a side effect of our runaway copyright/trademark/patent system, but also the nature of statutes.
No reasonable person would accept 'book' as a copyright/mark. The word as it stands alone is indicative of anything specific. But since the bounds on in this ears seem to be keep getting stretched and morphed, as well as less than stellar protections for individual/fair use, this is what to expect.
However, the pitfall of statute is that if you leave the language too broad you catch things you didn't intend, if you iterate every possibility you can think of there are always loopholes. There is a reason why many statutes are 'vague', and why we have a judicial system, but its a mess either way.
That being said, I really would like to see tome tightening up of both law and legal action on unethical/illegal clauses in user agreements. Perhaps with some penalties. If a clause is generally known prohibit legal action, and that action is a right that cannot be waived, then putting it in an agreement should carry a penalty for attempt to defraud.
I'm glad you asked, and I didnt go and put this in the first post as to not get off course.
It's not going to end. I predicted 'this' pretty much a decade ago. Any company who chose to get in bed with the media companies and start to proactively 'censor' would soon run into the gaping maw of corporate greed and be faced with 'you aren't doing enough'. Sadly, it's worse and will be worse. The media monsters want carte-blanche to expunge anything they deem damaging to their failing business model (rightly or wrongly). And even if you were to sue google and the media companies, they would just demand the laws get rewritten to allow them to get away with it based on some meaningless threshold that wont even amount to a slap on the wrist. They have already crafted an atmosphere in which 'look ppl we don't care about and end up firing anyway are gonna lose jobs because of blahblahblah.
Its part and parcel of the mindset that bundles boatloads of crap into your cable TV package you don't want, for the 6 things you do, all the time claiming they not only can't do anything about it, and that all the crap you dont want is in fact good for you.
Which would be conspiracy to defraud. Other than your sarcasm, this isn't actually to far from that. Google makes money on false claims, the media company makes money on false claims. They claim it was reviewed. The claim of it being reviewed, and if it not in fact copyrighted, that attaches intent. The counter claim would have to be 'error'. However to go to court and claim error of the reviewers, in the case of birdsong, would be tantamount to claiming abject incompetence, bringing in to question every other alleged review.
Actually I want to clarify. I recall better now that at least the first version of Safari did not have this feature. Later versions did, but it did not work.
IIRC the first 3 major versions of Safari on OS X totally ignored the setting for 'don't allow 3rd party cookies'. I had to file a bug that apple.com was setting these cookies w/ safari.
These assertions are really empty for me personally, since apple's site has partners that set these cookies, and apple's devs couldn't bother to implement this feature right.
And yes, my bitterness permeates everything:)
Totally ignoring the garbage cans full of presumed explosives at checkpoints?
When I flew thru narita, they put bottles on what I can only assume was an ultrasonic densitometer. This isnt rocket surgery ppl.
Perhaps you can acquire one of those EMP weapons Newt Ginrich is so worried about?
"No customer data is captured and stored on the ATM itself."
The keypad is just there for show.
The actual PIN is recorded by mindreading lasers stationed physically inside the VM.