For geeks, "the cloud" simply means remote computers. The "cloud" referencing the icon for the Internet that has been in use since the early 1970s in network diagrams.
For non-geeks, "the cloud" is a mystical source of infinite storage and infinite computing power, harnessed by the magic of the Interwebs.
you are showing how little you know about network terminology.
Seeing as I've been developing servers since the 1993 and working on the business and contract end for about a decade I'm pretty confident I understand what a server is. As for their agreement, it does not define server anywhere I could find. It says that they are disallowed, but never defines them.
As for your slightly incorrect definition, in P2P systems like bittorrent the machine is both a client and a server. If the machine is a leecher (does not accept incoming connections) then it operates only as a client. If the machine is a seeder (does not seek new connections) then it operates only as a client. The application is both a client and a server.
A server is something that serves data. If it responds to a request for data, that makes it a server.
Does your IP address have ports mapped open for games or other products? It is a server!
Does your IP address respond to ping requests? It is a server!
Does your IP address respond to ANY inbound connection? It is a server!
An ourtright ban on servers does not make sense. It breaks the Internet. Bandwidth limits might make sense in some scenarios, but not in this case for fiber-to-the-home. If the data needed to travel through their servers and other equipment a cap could be potentially justified in not saturating their equipment. But for fiber to the home where the other end is connected to internet backbones, the ISP doesn't bear any traffic so bandwidth limits are nonsense and profiteering.
Effectively this is the SCOTUS telling the NRC to read, rubber-stamp, shuffle, rubber-stamp, collate, file, retrieve, shuffle, rubber-stamp and push pencils much faster. A bureaucrat's nightmare!
The law (passed in 1983) said that once a location is chosen, the agency is allowed 3 years to make a yes or no determination, with one-year extensions if they become necessary.
All that is required is a simple "Yes" or "No", within three years.
The 3-year clock started ticking in 2002.
Since 2002 over $100M has been spent simply waiting for the yes or no answer.
Both the original court order and this appeals court order are repeating: The law says you must give a yes or no answer within three years. The time is expired, you must give your answer.
The problem is entirely political. They cannot answer either way and still expect to get votes, so they bury their heads in the sand and refuse to do anything other than cash the checks.
In some ways I am jealous; how many jobs can you do nothing for a decade and still collect a tithe of a billion dollars for it? Are they accepting new hires? It seems like a bureaucrat's dream.
Do you want to spend your time swapping between apps, waiting for apps to load, trying to draw with your laptop's touchpad, and otherwise concentrating on the technology rather than concentrating on the discussion?
If you want to review your paper notes and make them digital at some point after class, that is up to you. But for simple flexibility and reliability, paper is the answer.
Write on it. Draw on it. Re-use it in another class. Archive it. Paper does all the things asked for in the article.
>> In my view, police-eye view cameras should be completely mandatory.
For clarification, the footage should be available to everyone as part of their own defense. If you are accused of a crime, the police must give you the footage in exactly the same way other evidence must be made available. It doesn't matter the crime, even failing to signal for a lane change, or whatever else. Along the lines of "pics or it didn't happen".
This should also include the entire transaction inside police 'interview' rooms. If they invite you inside for a little chat the entire video should be available to you and your lawyer. Many times police will coerce a 'confession' out of somebody through dubious means, the mandatory video would prevent false claims and help eliminate bad cops. Everybody wins.
Cameras are so cheap that police policy should be that all police interactions are recorded. If the cop claims he saw you do something then it should be on the glasses camera. If the video is missing from the record, the police shouldn't prosecute and juries should have a serious question of "Why did the cop not generate a recording of this? What is the cop trying to hide?"
This is different from a surveillance state. It is not "big brother watching you." It is watching big brother. As the NYT article linked to describes, when people fraudulently claim police abuse they give up after seeing the tape. On the other side, after police see their mistakes they will drop the cases because they know they'll lose in court, and become better and more honest cops.
Simply knowing that their actions are being recorded is enough to make cops think twice.
Locally our police departments have cameras on them, as do various cities in Arizon, Connecticut and Texas. They were introduced in response to claims of police abuses. Cameras are cheap, the policy should be nation wide.
In my view, it should be completely mandatory. If there are claims of police abuse and the officer does not have their camera running for any reason, the officer's negligence should be an automatic win for the citizen. The video should be part of the evidence for every violation from an improper lane change to what goes on inside the police interrogation rooms. Apart from bathroom breaks and such, there are few good reasons NOT to have cops record everything they do.
Less than 48 hours ago with Jay Leno he said, and repeated: "We don't have a domestic spying program."
Today he admits that some spying is taking place, but they are "not interested in spying on ordinary people", and the domestic spying program has safeguards to help keep it from being abused.
DERP holy shit, why not give them a warning that you're going to kick their ass to the curb before security comes to their desk with a brown cardboard box. Yeah, that's not gonna piss any of them off before you cut off access. At least the private sector has that one figured out.
Yes, that is something the private sector figured out decades ago.
When people with important information are let go, they are invited to a private discussion without notice, told the sad news, and escorted out. They return after-hours with an escort to collect their personal belongings. Where x-weeks notice is appropriate or required, those weeks are paid with the official termination date that far out from the date that they were removed from the building.
Giving notice like this lets them ask questions like 'Does anyone have some spare thumb drives I can use?"
It is probably too late. The demand has already been issued.
He cannot destroy anything, it has already been demanded by the feds and destroying it after it is requested will land him in jail.
He cannot legally take it out of the country due to ITAR.
The best he can do if he (as the business) attempt to fight it is to surrender the servers to a court-certified secure escrow company; they will make duplicates of every disk and hold both the originals and copies in limbo. If the government takes a copy while it is still in secure escrow then they run afoul of the courts, not like that worries most of them as there are many ways around it like writing a generic statement that it is urgent for undisclosed national security purposes.
Just a hunch, but I'm guessing the soul searching was if he should take everything to an incineration company and burn it to white ash, potentially facing prison terms for doing so. Unless that happens, everything on the machine is still vulnerable to the $5 wrench attack.
I'm in similar shoes. I am a creative individual who wants to stay in the creative field. I have no interest in being a people-manager, balancing time off requests in the schedule, and having spreadsheets open all day.
This isn't because I cannot do that job. Instead it is because I have no interest in doing that job.
The OP gives the questions: '(1) Have you been a leader in a project? (2) Why after these many years, you are not in a management? (3) Do you lack leadership skills?'
My answers are: (1) I have been a leader, but I have not been the manager. I prefer to create and innovate rather than monitor schedules, balance time off requests, and ensure others are working. (2) I am not in management because I prefer creating things and the creative process over the process of herding workers. And finally, (3) Leadership and management are different tasks; I can lead and mentor others, but I am not interested in management.
Of course if the OP was applying for a managerial position, there is an alternate take. He might consider answers like: (1) I have been a leader but not a manager, management is always pyramidal and up until now I was content with being a producer; now I'm interested in managing people. (2) I am not in management because in the past I wanted to be a producer. Now I'm looking to stop doing engineering work and start managing people, schedules, and tasks. (3) Leadership and management are different skills; I have never been a people-manager before, but I have been a leader and brought many projects into existence.
I have to agree with the third judge on the panel. They aren't profiting from his likeness. They are profiting from the NCAA statistics.
They have a contract with the NCAA to use NCAA stats. The numbers are all NCAA statistics.
If we follow the majority judges' logic to the end, groups will be unable to publish statistics on the players unless they have an agreement with every player. Agreements with the league about the league's statistics are no longer good enough. Sorry ESPN, your costs just went up.
warrant isn't mentioned in the article either, not for getting the data and not for performing the raid(which they i think claim was "consentual", but what the fuck do you expect people to do if you come up geared for a war and want in..)
Imagine: "Sir, do you consent to a search where we poke and prod around your house and not damage anything, or will you force us to get a warrant and we can completely destroy your house during the 'search'?"
Hint: Courts have ruled that damage done under a search warrant is generally not compensated.
There have been cases where officers "looking for drugs" will damage homes to the point where they are uninhabitable, but the courts rule the individual must pay for the damage. Police performing a "search" can destroy just about any property they want. Smashing vases and poking holes in drywall as part of the "search" are generally considered legal. The police can even burn down your house an not pay you for it (see Patel v US and many other cases).
It has gotten to the point that "inverse condemnation" via police action is now a thing. Police and other government agents so greatly damage the property that it is the equivalent of condemnation.
No, you really don't want them force to get a warrant if they already don't like you.
when the machines rise against us our fridges and bridges will destroy us all
It is a very real concern.
I do not want random people attacking Things.
We already have enough problems with "smart homes" where random people are figuring out how to look at cameras (to identify the home for robbery) and unlock doors remotely.
As more devices are added, how many small exploits are people going to find? Will we hear about the occasional house burning down because some skript kiddie ran the equivalent of: for(every toaster, stove, furnace, grill, etc in the world) { start cooking; }
Let's fix that. It was a unanimous voice vote. Here are the names. Contact them and tell them what you will:
RICHARD C. SHELBY (R), Alabama
LISA MURKOWSKI (R), Alaska
MARK BEGICH (D), Alaska
JOHN BOOZMAN (R), Arkansas
MARK PRYOR (D), Arkansas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), California
CHRIS COONS (D), Delaware
MARK KIRK (R), Illinois
RICHARD DURBIN (D), Illinois
DAN COATS(R), Indiana
TOM HARKIN (D), Iowa
JERRY MORAN(R), Kansas
MITCH MCCONNELL (R), Kentucky
MARY L. LANDRIEU (D), Louisiana
SUSAN COLLINS (R), Maine
BARBARA MIKULSKI (D), Maryland
THAD COCHRAN (R), Mississippi
ROY BLUNT(R), Missouri
JON TESTER (D), Montana
MIKE JOHANNS (R), Nebraska
JEANNE SHAHEEN (D), New Hampshire
TOM UDALL (D), New Mexico
JOHN HOEVEN(R), North Dakota
JEFF MERKLEY (D), Oregon
JACK REED (D), Rhode Island
LINDSEY GRAHAM(R), South Carolina
TIM JOHNSON (D), South Dakota
LAMAR ALEXANDER (R), Tennessee
PATRICK LEAHY (D), Vermont
PATTY MURRAY (D), Washington
Besides suing, he should consider bringing a complaint before the Bar. Not turning over possible exculpatory evidence would seem to be an ethics violation.
Close. The ethics violation is a relatively minor issue.
Yes it is an ethics violation, but more importantly it is also a violation of both the US Constitution and the Florida State Constitution.
It is an unfortunate trend, but prosecutors and police across the country have been facing ever-increasing claims of withholding evidence. Really, the defense should be given access to all information.
Even in this case there was a tussle about the evidence being actually withheld, and the judge agreed that they withheld it and demanded everything be handed over... but no penalty was given to the state for their violation.
Sadly violations are usually discounted as being accidental oversights and punishments against prosecutors are non-existent. It ought to result in immediate disbarment of the lawyers involved since the violation fundamentally destroys justice, but there is no incentive for the "good old boys" club to change.
Yes. It is a cultural thing. It is also an enforcement thing. Combine the two and interesting effects happen.
We have a local chain of theaters that is really good about enforcement.
In the lobby there are many posters and signs that you will be thrown out for cell phone use during a movie or during previews. At the start of a movie is a warning that you will be thrown out. There is a large food court and multiple eateries (not just popcorn), and if you sit out there for more than an hour or so you will see somebody being escorted from the theaters due to phone use.
I love going to the chain, but a few weeks ago I saw a movie at a different theater. It seemed like everyone had their phone out. I walked out and talked to the usher, they said they couldn't do anything.
Even in a region that has a problem with phone use, theater management absolutely can take control and fix the problem if they choose.
If you can't articulate what the implications are then at least one of the following is true.
1) You don't actually have sufficient understanding of the situation
2) You're the wrong person to attempt being the spokesperson for the "opposition"
I very much agree with this. Unlike the IT worker in the headline I can articulate many of those implications. Unfortunately getting it through a child's view is difficult. Even communicating it to an ADULT is difficult.
We see these things on/. all the time:
* Goofy pictures as a teen, but as 47 year old fired from executive job due to bad public response.
* Seemingly innocent banter about being insane, Texas teenager in jail.
* Picture of children in a bathtub, ten years in prison for child porn.
* "Why would I want to live there?" to your friends, fired from Microsoft.
* Sexting images go public, lives ruined.
And those are the EASY cases.
On their surface none of them seem like threatening issues. I post pictures of myself, friends and, family. I publicly chat with friends. I hope that they never come back and bite me, but in this world even the smallest innocent thing can be taken out of context and destroy lives.
How exactly do you communicate rational responses (not just fear) for these actual risks that we read about daily without sounding crazy?
Obviously there are valid issues. The question is not IF we should teach them, but HOW.
Right now there are few ways to articulate the risk. There is the vague handwaving education of "bad guys will steal it".
Even when doing this professionally it is difficult to fully understand what the risks are, who exactly the "bad guys" includes, the kind of stuff they want to take, and the reasons they want it. The bad guys may include governments, vandals, corporate espionage, advertisers, news agencies, and more. The stuff they want may include not just credit card numbers, but also patterns of what you like, where you go, and who you are with. That stupid-looking photo may be cute today, but it may destroy your bid for public office two decades later. The fact that your facebook friends have some overlap with a suspected terrorist may put you on a watch list. Knowing the bad guys, and knowing the data they are looking for, is hard.
Then you have the difficulty of explaining it clearly. It is hard enough to explain to a teenager that their quick goofy photos (or much worse, sexting) might, twenty years from now, prevent them from getting their dreams fulfilled. Sometimes it is easier to point out that public stupidity can prevent them from getting a job in three years, but even that seems difficult to teach.
Since that wasn't quite asked, here's the evolved question:
HOW do you teach K12 students about the risks in the digital world?
They do it because they want to force a plea deal.
The only reason they include it is for the so-called trial penalty. It is realistic enough that a judge won't throw it out, but it is so extreme that if the guy chooses to attempt a trial the risk is greater. It will be so extreme that he won't want that risk, so he'll choose the plea bargain instead of rolling the dice at a trial.
This is the biggest current flaw in the US legal system. Prosecutors have no stake in the game, no disincentive from adding trumped-up and unrealistic charges. It is something that other nations managed to get right with prosecutors needing to pay for accusations that don't result in convictions. If prosecutors needed to pay some significant penalty money to compensate the accused for every charge that is dismissed, the problem would quickly dry up.
Great, the UK is becoming a panopticon state even faster than the US. As an American, I'm not petty enough to welcome the company.
You got it backwards.
The UK entered the mass-surveillance business back before WW1. Pax Brittania meant they could monitor the world with impunity, just like the US does now. Mass surveillance of British citizens entered the public knowledge around WW1, so the government made the GCCS (Government Code and Cypher School) public after the war. It was later named the GCHQ, which is the functional equivalent to the NSA in the United States. Thanks to the CCTV cameras every five meters it is still the most surveilled nation --- the US is not alone in monitoring every phone call.
US mass-surveillance came a bit later, but WW2 saw the industry boom. It entered public knowledge after WW2, which is about the time the NSA was formed. The "Five Eyes" program during World War 2 expanded government surveillance to the global scale. The five nations (UK, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) are still working together to ensure that when one country can't do the spying, another country will gladly step in and spy for them.
The US joined the UK. Even though the US does an incredible amount of spying around the globe, the UK has been and continues to be the "leader" in homeland surveillance.
The biggest difference is that they recommend having a single step process instead of the current two-step process of first looking up the registrar and then using that registrar's WHOIS system.
What two-step process are you talking about? There is only one step for me to get information from current whois database:
$ whois slashdot.org
that is all, no second step is necessary.
You don't see it because the *nix whois app does the both steps for you.
It requires two queries. The first query is to find the registrar that is associated with the name, the second query is to get the data from that registrar.
The ICANN proposal sounds very bad for me for several reasons:
- current system is fine, no reason to change it
- centralisation is bad. What if the U.S. controled central authority started to filter entries it doesn't like from the database? What if the central authority refuses to accept certain new entries into the database?
- users would need to register and pay fee to access (certain info in) whois database
The current system actually has several problems.
If you have your own domain name, you know how every year you get about 50 emails and postal mailings telling you it is time to renew; they send something that looks like a bill for services but is actually an overpriced DNS transfer agreement. That is one of the problems the proposal is designed to reduce. Sadly it cannot be eliminated, but that abuse of the system will be harder and more expensive to scammers.
The current system is also not fine in that it has too limited of information when you actually do need to contact an organization. Most people don't see it, but when a NOC needs to contact a major domain owner, and needs to do it *NOW*, there is no immediately useful record in the whois data. So the NOC will usually just blackhole the domain until they can eventually reach someone's phone or through email.
For your other concerns, what if they do? Think about each.
Let's assume someone filters the entries from the centralized database. Nothing in the proposal says "kill the existing WHOIS". In fact they should probably keep them running for many years to come because the existing tools will not all change overnight. If a registrar (or a nation) feels threatened, they can keep the service up indefinately (or in the case of governments, order the registrar to keep it running).
Next, lets assume the central authority refuses to accept new entries. What does that mean? The DNS entries would still exist because it is a service contract between the individual and the registrar. If the centralized source rejects them then they're really going to piss people off. NOT collecting information is the opposite of what would happen.
What if they required fees? The proposal actually does recommend fees for certain data, so I suggest you go actually read the proposal. Think about it carefully. If they require fees for information needed by lay people and most small businesses then the backlash would be tremendous. Overnight you would see several competitors. Also because the existing WHOIS services do not need to be removed they such an action by a central source would cause them to fail. But they do recommend charging fees for some things like bulk searches frequently done by scammers and domain squatters. They also recommend charging fees some of the new cross-TLD functionality, which again would otherwise be more abused by scammers and squatters.
I recommend you go read the actual proposal. Don't read it with an eye for OMGWTF SPIES!. Read it with from the perspective of a NOC operations engineer.
From TFA and the report, those fields are recommended to remain public and anonymous. The biggest difference is that they recommend having a single step process instead of the current two-step process of first looking up the registrar and then using that registrar's WHOIS system.
Network abuse mitigation is specifically listed as a use case that should not require an account.
They are not talking about blocking all access to the data.
They propose keeping a good portion of the existing data available through anonymous public requests, exactly the way current WHOIS system works today. The big difference is that there will be a single source; you won't need to do the two-step process currently in place.
They are also proposing adding additional contact fields that have been frequently requested for WHOIS data.
They are also proposing limiting access to some data, in particular limiting the data traditionally used to scam people with fake DNS renewals. In particular it does not talk about refusing access, simply limiting the requests to authenticated users to prevent thinks like bulk-searches that scammers frequently use. The report recommends only limited fields require authenticated access, not those used commonly by individuals or by website administrators for abuse mitigation.
Finally, they are proposing adding new advanced search capabilities that are useful for ISPs (and also private and government surveillance) that are not currently available, but will be very useful for domain abusers spanning many TLDs.
They are likely habitable in the same way both Mars and Venus are habitable.
We most likely would need to provide our own self-enclosed biosphere, but that is not completely unreasonable.
The key thing is temperature. Mercury is 400'C during the day. Uranus is -150'C during the day. In either case the travelers will need to continuously heat or cool their biosphere using a lot of energy. Trying to keep the biosphere warm during interstellar travel will be an issue since interstellar space is around -260C according to Wikipedia, but the journey would likely be short relative to a permanent settlement on a nicely warmed planet. You've got to keep the biosphere warm or have everything in some sort of cryogenic state, but that is only during transit.
By the time we have the ability for interstellar human travel 22 light years away, constructing a self-contained bubble of Earth-life on the planet will be a small thing.
In that respect, by once we have the ability to transport human life through interstellar distances the planets seem very habitable.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it shouldn't surprise the geeks.
For geeks, "the cloud" simply means remote computers. The "cloud" referencing the icon for the Internet that has been in use since the early 1970s in network diagrams.
For non-geeks, "the cloud" is a mystical source of infinite storage and infinite computing power, harnessed by the magic of the Interwebs.
Seeing as I've been developing servers since the 1993 and working on the business and contract end for about a decade I'm pretty confident I understand what a server is. As for their agreement, it does not define server anywhere I could find. It says that they are disallowed, but never defines them.
As for your slightly incorrect definition, in P2P systems like bittorrent the machine is both a client and a server. If the machine is a leecher (does not accept incoming connections) then it operates only as a client. If the machine is a seeder (does not seek new connections) then it operates only as a client. The application is both a client and a server.
A server is something that serves data. If it responds to a request for data, that makes it a server.
Does your IP address have ports mapped open for games or other products? It is a server!
Does your IP address respond to ping requests? It is a server!
Does your IP address respond to ANY inbound connection? It is a server!
An ourtright ban on servers does not make sense. It breaks the Internet. Bandwidth limits might make sense in some scenarios, but not in this case for fiber-to-the-home. If the data needed to travel through their servers and other equipment a cap could be potentially justified in not saturating their equipment. But for fiber to the home where the other end is connected to internet backbones, the ISP doesn't bear any traffic so bandwidth limits are nonsense and profiteering.
The law (passed in 1983) said that once a location is chosen, the agency is allowed 3 years to make a yes or no determination, with one-year extensions if they become necessary.
All that is required is a simple "Yes" or "No", within three years.
The 3-year clock started ticking in 2002.
Since 2002 over $100M has been spent simply waiting for the yes or no answer.
Both the original court order and this appeals court order are repeating: The law says you must give a yes or no answer within three years. The time is expired, you must give your answer.
The problem is entirely political. They cannot answer either way and still expect to get votes, so they bury their heads in the sand and refuse to do anything other than cash the checks.
In some ways I am jealous; how many jobs can you do nothing for a decade and still collect a tithe of a billion dollars for it? Are they accepting new hires? It seems like a bureaucrat's dream.
Totally agree, PENCIL + PAPER is the answer.
Do you want to spend your time swapping between apps, waiting for apps to load, trying to draw with your laptop's touchpad, and otherwise concentrating on the technology rather than concentrating on the discussion?
If you want to review your paper notes and make them digital at some point after class, that is up to you. But for simple flexibility and reliability, paper is the answer.
Write on it. Draw on it. Re-use it in another class. Archive it. Paper does all the things asked for in the article.
Sorry for replying to my own post...
>> In my view, police-eye view cameras should be completely mandatory.
For clarification, the footage should be available to everyone as part of their own defense. If you are accused of a crime, the police must give you the footage in exactly the same way other evidence must be made available. It doesn't matter the crime, even failing to signal for a lane change, or whatever else. Along the lines of "pics or it didn't happen".
This should also include the entire transaction inside police 'interview' rooms. If they invite you inside for a little chat the entire video should be available to you and your lawyer. Many times police will coerce a 'confession' out of somebody through dubious means, the mandatory video would prevent false claims and help eliminate bad cops. Everybody wins.
Cameras are so cheap that police policy should be that all police interactions are recorded. If the cop claims he saw you do something then it should be on the glasses camera. If the video is missing from the record, the police shouldn't prosecute and juries should have a serious question of "Why did the cop not generate a recording of this? What is the cop trying to hide?"
This is different from a surveillance state. It is not "big brother watching you." It is watching big brother. As the NYT article linked to describes, when people fraudulently claim police abuse they give up after seeing the tape. On the other side, after police see their mistakes they will drop the cases because they know they'll lose in court, and become better and more honest cops.
Everybody wins.
Either it's constitutional or it's not. And the way I read the fourth amendment there isn't much question it's not.
I'm pretty sure that's why the judge ordered the cameras.
Several precincts around the country started wearing cameras.
When police wear cameras, complaints about civil violations go down by about 88%, overall use of force drops by about 60%
Simply knowing that their actions are being recorded is enough to make cops think twice.
Locally our police departments have cameras on them, as do various cities in Arizon, Connecticut and Texas. They were introduced in response to claims of police abuses. Cameras are cheap, the policy should be nation wide.
In my view, it should be completely mandatory. If there are claims of police abuse and the officer does not have their camera running for any reason, the officer's negligence should be an automatic win for the citizen. The video should be part of the evidence for every violation from an improper lane change to what goes on inside the police interrogation rooms. Apart from bathroom breaks and such, there are few good reasons NOT to have cops record everything they do.
Less than 48 hours ago with Jay Leno he said, and repeated: "We don't have a domestic spying program."
Today he admits that some spying is taking place, but they are "not interested in spying on ordinary people", and the domestic spying program has safeguards to help keep it from being abused.
That is quite a backstep.
DERP
holy shit, why not give them a warning that you're going to kick their ass to the curb before security comes to their desk with a brown cardboard box. Yeah, that's not gonna piss any of them off before you cut off access. At least the private sector has that one figured out.
Yes, that is something the private sector figured out decades ago.
When people with important information are let go, they are invited to a private discussion without notice, told the sad news, and escorted out. They return after-hours with an escort to collect their personal belongings. Where x-weeks notice is appropriate or required, those weeks are paid with the official termination date that far out from the date that they were removed from the building.
Giving notice like this lets them ask questions like 'Does anyone have some spare thumb drives I can use?"
Maybe he can move it offshore.
It is probably too late. The demand has already been issued.
He cannot destroy anything, it has already been demanded by the feds and destroying it after it is requested will land him in jail.
He cannot legally take it out of the country due to ITAR.
The best he can do if he (as the business) attempt to fight it is to surrender the servers to a court-certified secure escrow company; they will make duplicates of every disk and hold both the originals and copies in limbo. If the government takes a copy while it is still in secure escrow then they run afoul of the courts, not like that worries most of them as there are many ways around it like writing a generic statement that it is urgent for undisclosed national security purposes.
Just a hunch, but I'm guessing the soul searching was if he should take everything to an incineration company and burn it to white ash, potentially facing prison terms for doing so. Unless that happens, everything on the machine is still vulnerable to the $5 wrench attack.
I'm in similar shoes. I am a creative individual who wants to stay in the creative field. I have no interest in being a people-manager, balancing time off requests in the schedule, and having spreadsheets open all day.
This isn't because I cannot do that job. Instead it is because I have no interest in doing that job.
The OP gives the questions: '(1) Have you been a leader in a project? (2) Why after these many years, you are not in a management? (3) Do you lack leadership skills?'
My answers are: (1) I have been a leader, but I have not been the manager. I prefer to create and innovate rather than monitor schedules, balance time off requests, and ensure others are working. (2) I am not in management because I prefer creating things and the creative process over the process of herding workers. And finally, (3) Leadership and management are different tasks; I can lead and mentor others, but I am not interested in management.
Of course if the OP was applying for a managerial position, there is an alternate take. He might consider answers like: (1) I have been a leader but not a manager, management is always pyramidal and up until now I was content with being a producer; now I'm interested in managing people. (2) I am not in management because in the past I wanted to be a producer. Now I'm looking to stop doing engineering work and start managing people, schedules, and tasks. (3) Leadership and management are different skills; I have never been a people-manager before, but I have been a leader and brought many projects into existence.
I have to agree with the third judge on the panel. They aren't profiting from his likeness. They are profiting from the NCAA statistics.
They have a contract with the NCAA to use NCAA stats. The numbers are all NCAA statistics.
If we follow the majority judges' logic to the end, groups will be unable to publish statistics on the players unless they have an agreement with every player. Agreements with the league about the league's statistics are no longer good enough. Sorry ESPN, your costs just went up.
warrant isn't mentioned in the article either, not for getting the data and not for performing the raid(which they i think claim was "consentual", but what the fuck do you expect people to do if you come up geared for a war and want in..)
Imagine: "Sir, do you consent to a search where we poke and prod around your house and not damage anything, or will you force us to get a warrant and we can completely destroy your house during the 'search'?"
Hint: Courts have ruled that damage done under a search warrant is generally not compensated.
There have been cases where officers "looking for drugs" will damage homes to the point where they are uninhabitable, but the courts rule the individual must pay for the damage. Police performing a "search" can destroy just about any property they want. Smashing vases and poking holes in drywall as part of the "search" are generally considered legal. The police can even burn down your house an not pay you for it (see Patel v US and many other cases).
It has gotten to the point that "inverse condemnation" via police action is now a thing. Police and other government agents so greatly damage the property that it is the equivalent of condemnation.
No, you really don't want them force to get a warrant if they already don't like you.
when the machines rise against us our fridges and bridges will destroy us all
It is a very real concern.
I do not want random people attacking Things.
We already have enough problems with "smart homes" where random people are figuring out how to look at cameras (to identify the home for robbery) and unlock doors remotely.
As more devices are added, how many small exploits are people going to find? Will we hear about the occasional house burning down because some skript kiddie ran the equivalent of: for(every toaster, stove, furnace, grill, etc in the world) { start cooking; }
The specific names are hard to come by right now.
Let's fix that. It was a unanimous voice vote. Here are the names. Contact them and tell them what you will:
RICHARD C. SHELBY (R), Alabama
LISA MURKOWSKI (R), Alaska
MARK BEGICH (D), Alaska
JOHN BOOZMAN (R), Arkansas
MARK PRYOR (D), Arkansas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), California
CHRIS COONS (D), Delaware
MARK KIRK (R), Illinois
RICHARD DURBIN (D), Illinois
DAN COATS(R), Indiana
TOM HARKIN (D), Iowa
JERRY MORAN(R), Kansas
MITCH MCCONNELL (R), Kentucky
MARY L. LANDRIEU (D), Louisiana
SUSAN COLLINS (R), Maine
BARBARA MIKULSKI (D), Maryland
THAD COCHRAN (R), Mississippi
ROY BLUNT(R), Missouri
JON TESTER (D), Montana
MIKE JOHANNS (R), Nebraska
JEANNE SHAHEEN (D), New Hampshire
TOM UDALL (D), New Mexico
JOHN HOEVEN(R), North Dakota
JEFF MERKLEY (D), Oregon
JACK REED (D), Rhode Island
LINDSEY GRAHAM(R), South Carolina
TIM JOHNSON (D), South Dakota
LAMAR ALEXANDER (R), Tennessee
PATRICK LEAHY (D), Vermont
PATTY MURRAY (D), Washington
Besides suing, he should consider bringing a complaint before the Bar. Not turning over possible exculpatory evidence would seem to be an ethics violation.
Close. The ethics violation is a relatively minor issue.
Yes it is an ethics violation, but more importantly it is also a violation of both the US Constitution and the Florida State Constitution.
It is an unfortunate trend, but prosecutors and police across the country have been facing ever-increasing claims of withholding evidence. Really, the defense should be given access to all information.
Even in this case there was a tussle about the evidence being actually withheld, and the judge agreed that they withheld it and demanded everything be handed over ... but no penalty was given to the state for their violation.
Sadly violations are usually discounted as being accidental oversights and punishments against prosecutors are non-existent. It ought to result in immediate disbarment of the lawyers involved since the violation fundamentally destroys justice, but there is no incentive for the "good old boys" club to change.
is this more of a regional or cultural problem?
Yes. It is a cultural thing. It is also an enforcement thing. Combine the two and interesting effects happen.
We have a local chain of theaters that is really good about enforcement.
In the lobby there are many posters and signs that you will be thrown out for cell phone use during a movie or during previews. At the start of a movie is a warning that you will be thrown out. There is a large food court and multiple eateries (not just popcorn), and if you sit out there for more than an hour or so you will see somebody being escorted from the theaters due to phone use.
I love going to the chain, but a few weeks ago I saw a movie at a different theater. It seemed like everyone had their phone out. I walked out and talked to the usher, they said they couldn't do anything.
Even in a region that has a problem with phone use, theater management absolutely can take control and fix the problem if they choose.
If you can't articulate what the implications are then at least one of the following is true.
1) You don't actually have sufficient understanding of the situation 2) You're the wrong person to attempt being the spokesperson for the "opposition"
I very much agree with this. Unlike the IT worker in the headline I can articulate many of those implications. Unfortunately getting it through a child's view is difficult. Even communicating it to an ADULT is difficult.
We see these things on /. all the time:
* Goofy pictures as a teen, but as 47 year old fired from executive job due to bad public response.
* Seemingly innocent banter about being insane, Texas teenager in jail.
* Picture of children in a bathtub, ten years in prison for child porn.
* "Why would I want to live there?" to your friends, fired from Microsoft.
* Sexting images go public, lives ruined.
And those are the EASY cases.
On their surface none of them seem like threatening issues. I post pictures of myself, friends and, family. I publicly chat with friends. I hope that they never come back and bite me, but in this world even the smallest innocent thing can be taken out of context and destroy lives.
How exactly do you communicate rational responses (not just fear) for these actual risks that we read about daily without sounding crazy?
Obviously there are valid issues. The question is not IF we should teach them, but HOW.
Right now there are few ways to articulate the risk. There is the vague handwaving education of "bad guys will steal it".
Even when doing this professionally it is difficult to fully understand what the risks are, who exactly the "bad guys" includes, the kind of stuff they want to take, and the reasons they want it. The bad guys may include governments, vandals, corporate espionage, advertisers, news agencies, and more. The stuff they want may include not just credit card numbers, but also patterns of what you like, where you go, and who you are with. That stupid-looking photo may be cute today, but it may destroy your bid for public office two decades later. The fact that your facebook friends have some overlap with a suspected terrorist may put you on a watch list. Knowing the bad guys, and knowing the data they are looking for, is hard.
Then you have the difficulty of explaining it clearly. It is hard enough to explain to a teenager that their quick goofy photos (or much worse, sexting) might, twenty years from now, prevent them from getting their dreams fulfilled. Sometimes it is easier to point out that public stupidity can prevent them from getting a job in three years, but even that seems difficult to teach.
Since that wasn't quite asked, here's the evolved question:
HOW do you teach K12 students about the risks in the digital world?
They do it because they want to force a plea deal.
The only reason they include it is for the so-called trial penalty. It is realistic enough that a judge won't throw it out, but it is so extreme that if the guy chooses to attempt a trial the risk is greater. It will be so extreme that he won't want that risk, so he'll choose the plea bargain instead of rolling the dice at a trial.
This is the biggest current flaw in the US legal system. Prosecutors have no stake in the game, no disincentive from adding trumped-up and unrealistic charges. It is something that other nations managed to get right with prosecutors needing to pay for accusations that don't result in convictions. If prosecutors needed to pay some significant penalty money to compensate the accused for every charge that is dismissed, the problem would quickly dry up.
Great, the UK is becoming a panopticon state even faster than the US. As an American, I'm not petty enough to welcome the company.
You got it backwards.
The UK entered the mass-surveillance business back before WW1. Pax Brittania meant they could monitor the world with impunity, just like the US does now. Mass surveillance of British citizens entered the public knowledge around WW1, so the government made the GCCS (Government Code and Cypher School) public after the war. It was later named the GCHQ, which is the functional equivalent to the NSA in the United States. Thanks to the CCTV cameras every five meters it is still the most surveilled nation --- the US is not alone in monitoring every phone call.
US mass-surveillance came a bit later, but WW2 saw the industry boom. It entered public knowledge after WW2, which is about the time the NSA was formed. The "Five Eyes" program during World War 2 expanded government surveillance to the global scale. The five nations (UK, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) are still working together to ensure that when one country can't do the spying, another country will gladly step in and spy for them.
The US joined the UK. Even though the US does an incredible amount of spying around the globe, the UK has been and continues to be the "leader" in homeland surveillance.
The biggest difference is that they recommend having a single step process instead of the current two-step process of first looking up the registrar and then using that registrar's WHOIS system.
What two-step process are you talking about? There is only one step for me to get information from current whois database:
$ whois slashdot.org
that is all, no second step is necessary.
You don't see it because the *nix whois app does the both steps for you.
It requires two queries. The first query is to find the registrar that is associated with the name, the second query is to get the data from that registrar.
The ICANN proposal sounds very bad for me for several reasons: - current system is fine, no reason to change it - centralisation is bad. What if the U.S. controled central authority started to filter entries it doesn't like from the database? What if the central authority refuses to accept certain new entries into the database? - users would need to register and pay fee to access (certain info in) whois database
The current system actually has several problems.
If you have your own domain name, you know how every year you get about 50 emails and postal mailings telling you it is time to renew; they send something that looks like a bill for services but is actually an overpriced DNS transfer agreement. That is one of the problems the proposal is designed to reduce. Sadly it cannot be eliminated, but that abuse of the system will be harder and more expensive to scammers.
The current system is also not fine in that it has too limited of information when you actually do need to contact an organization. Most people don't see it, but when a NOC needs to contact a major domain owner, and needs to do it *NOW*, there is no immediately useful record in the whois data. So the NOC will usually just blackhole the domain until they can eventually reach someone's phone or through email.
For your other concerns, what if they do? Think about each.
Let's assume someone filters the entries from the centralized database. Nothing in the proposal says "kill the existing WHOIS". In fact they should probably keep them running for many years to come because the existing tools will not all change overnight. If a registrar (or a nation) feels threatened, they can keep the service up indefinately (or in the case of governments, order the registrar to keep it running).
Next, lets assume the central authority refuses to accept new entries. What does that mean? The DNS entries would still exist because it is a service contract between the individual and the registrar. If the centralized source rejects them then they're really going to piss people off. NOT collecting information is the opposite of what would happen.
What if they required fees? The proposal actually does recommend fees for certain data, so I suggest you go actually read the proposal. Think about it carefully. If they require fees for information needed by lay people and most small businesses then the backlash would be tremendous. Overnight you would see several competitors. Also because the existing WHOIS services do not need to be removed they such an action by a central source would cause them to fail. But they do recommend charging fees for some things like bulk searches frequently done by scammers and domain squatters. They also recommend charging fees some of the new cross-TLD functionality, which again would otherwise be more abused by scammers and squatters.
I recommend you go read the actual proposal. Don't read it with an eye for OMGWTF SPIES!. Read it with from the perspective of a NOC operations engineer.
From TFA and the report, those fields are recommended to remain public and anonymous. The biggest difference is that they recommend having a single step process instead of the current two-step process of first looking up the registrar and then using that registrar's WHOIS system.
Network abuse mitigation is specifically listed as a use case that should not require an account.
They are not talking about blocking all access to the data.
They propose keeping a good portion of the existing data available through anonymous public requests, exactly the way current WHOIS system works today. The big difference is that there will be a single source; you won't need to do the two-step process currently in place.
They are also proposing adding additional contact fields that have been frequently requested for WHOIS data.
They are also proposing limiting access to some data, in particular limiting the data traditionally used to scam people with fake DNS renewals. In particular it does not talk about refusing access, simply limiting the requests to authenticated users to prevent thinks like bulk-searches that scammers frequently use. The report recommends only limited fields require authenticated access, not those used commonly by individuals or by website administrators for abuse mitigation.
Finally, they are proposing adding new advanced search capabilities that are useful for ISPs (and also private and government surveillance) that are not currently available, but will be very useful for domain abusers spanning many TLDs.
They are likely habitable in the same way both Mars and Venus are habitable.
We most likely would need to provide our own self-enclosed biosphere, but that is not completely unreasonable.
The key thing is temperature. Mercury is 400'C during the day. Uranus is -150'C during the day. In either case the travelers will need to continuously heat or cool their biosphere using a lot of energy. Trying to keep the biosphere warm during interstellar travel will be an issue since interstellar space is around -260C according to Wikipedia, but the journey would likely be short relative to a permanent settlement on a nicely warmed planet. You've got to keep the biosphere warm or have everything in some sort of cryogenic state, but that is only during transit.
By the time we have the ability for interstellar human travel 22 light years away, constructing a self-contained bubble of Earth-life on the planet will be a small thing.
In that respect, by once we have the ability to transport human life through interstellar distances the planets seem very habitable.