Anyone who hacks the system but doesn't inform the sysadmin runs the risk of being found out (by the sysadmin or by another hacker). At that point an investigation will start to determine how long abuse has been taking place. It would be pretty easy to show that the hacker violated his terms of service (presence of an unauthorised proxy, stash of porn in a hidden subdirectory, DDoS daemon running etc...).
XS4ALL's TOS simply protect the 'ethical' hacker. And by the way, there are plenty of people (in their right mind) who do that sort of thing; Lamo springs to mind as a well-known example.
Besides, this was only one reason why I like my ISP. There is also a notable absence of annoying clauses in their TOS. Like: no restriction on home networks, no restriction on what services you run (as long as you don't harm others, e.g. no open relays). Apart from favourable TOS they also have policies that I can identify with; they actively protect the privacy and freedom of their users, actively protect free speech, take a strong anti-spam position and are at the forefront of new technology. They are also reliable and give good service. All this at a very reasonable price. (Sorry if I sound like an advertisement, but I really am a satisfied customer)
Just read the TOS for my ISP again and was reminded why I chose this ISP (even though it is not the cheapest available). One of the clauses says (roughly translated):
All customers are
allowed to hack the system. The first custormer that manages to get 'root' status will receive 6 months free use of the system. In return customer will explain how the system was hacked. Customers will take pains not to damage the system. Customers hereby give other customers to hack the system.
I feel that this should be a standard clause in any ISP's TOS.
I guess this sort of thing needn't necessarily be bad... As long as you get Microsoft to sign a clause specifying that they will pay for migration costs should the department wish to switch to another architecture at some time in the future....
Who on earth is running a browser earlier than 4.x? Do you expect stuff to be rendered right if you use an older version of IE/Netscape/Opera? Do advertisers want to sell to people that refuse to use the latest and greatest thing? Don't you have to try real hard to even find an older version of any of these browsers?
This is not the issue. As I understood the article the complaint was that current web pages fail in the newest browsers because they don't accept non-standard markup as much as they used to. I.e. loads of web-pages should be rewritten to make them more standards-compliant.
I'm not an American citizen and I don't know anything about HIPAA but...
As I understand it from this discussion, HIPAA specifies the hospital's obligations, not Microsoft's or in fact any other software vendor's.
If you install SP3 and Microsoft remotely accesses your PCs, Microsoft probably wouldn't be in violation of HIPAA (because it isn't bound by it). *You*, however would be in violation because you've potentially allowed a third-party access to confidential data.
So it seems to me that your only option is not to install the service pack (or get some kind of exemption from either the HIPAA authority or Microsoft).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't agree with your assessment.
Anyone who hacks the system but doesn't inform the sysadmin runs the risk of being found out (by the sysadmin or by another hacker). At that point an investigation will start to determine how long abuse has been taking place. It would be pretty easy to show that the hacker violated his terms of service (presence of an unauthorised proxy, stash of porn in a hidden subdirectory, DDoS daemon running etc...).
XS4ALL's TOS simply protect the 'ethical' hacker. And by the way, there are plenty of people (in their right mind) who do that sort of thing; Lamo springs to mind as a well-known example.
Besides, this was only one reason why I like my ISP. There is also a notable absence of annoying clauses in their TOS. Like: no restriction on home networks, no restriction on what services you run (as long as you don't harm others, e.g. no open relays). Apart from favourable TOS they also have policies that I can identify with; they actively protect the privacy and freedom of their users, actively protect free speech, take a strong anti-spam position and are at the forefront of new technology. They are also reliable and give good service. All this at a very reasonable price. (Sorry if I sound like an advertisement, but I really am a satisfied customer)
Just read the TOS for my ISP again and was reminded why I chose this ISP (even though it is not the cheapest available). One of the clauses says (roughly translated):
I feel that this should be a standard clause in any ISP's TOS.
I guess this sort of thing needn't necessarily be bad...
As long as you get Microsoft to sign a clause specifying that they will pay for migration costs should the department wish to switch to another architecture at some time in the future....
Who on earth is running a browser earlier than 4.x? Do you expect stuff to be rendered right if you use an older version of IE/Netscape/Opera? Do advertisers want to sell to people that refuse to use the latest and greatest thing? Don't you have to try real hard to even find an older version of any of these browsers?
This is not the issue. As I understood the article the complaint was that current web pages fail in the newest browsers because they don't accept non-standard markup as much as they used to. I.e. loads of web-pages should be rewritten to make them more standards-compliant.
I'm not an American citizen and I don't know anything about HIPAA but...
As I understand it from this discussion, HIPAA specifies the hospital's obligations, not Microsoft's or in fact any other software vendor's.
If you install SP3 and Microsoft remotely accesses your PCs, Microsoft probably wouldn't be in violation of HIPAA (because it isn't bound by it). *You*, however would be in violation because you've potentially allowed a third-party access to confidential data.
So it seems to me that your only option is not to install the service pack (or get some kind of exemption from either the HIPAA authority or Microsoft).
But IANAL...