I went to Diebold's voting machine site, and they seem to be proud that Georga's using (or going to use) their machines. Anyone want to call Georgia and let them know that the 'encyrpted' passwords can be cut and pasted between Access databases to add users who can change votes?
How many installations do you think are using the default password?
Can you drop ship them to every voting precinct in the U.S. and send the bill to 1600 Pennsyvania Ave.?
Thanks!
GWB
ps- is a check from Halliburton ok?
LOL
No, I just think that if someone has a unique and innovative idea, they should be afforded at least some temporary protection. The fact that big business is too big is just the reason that it may be needed now, whereas before a company like Wal-Mart would stick to it's core business, and not "steal" an idea and venture into what is essentially unrelated to their current business focus.
And please remember my original subject and message - I'm torn - I agree with most of the replies, and see plenty of reasons to not add to the fubar'd patent system. I only took this side because I didn't figure many people would. I love a good debate:-)
Nothing is non-obvious once someone has done it. It's not transferring media over a network - it's subscription based DVD rentals. Flat fee for unlimited movies. If it was so old and obvious, why did so many try to rent movies online and fail?
Subscriptions for rentals - something you have to return is very novel, IMHO. And no amount of customer service or speedy website is going to allow them to compete with a corporation with virtually unlimited resources that isn't even in the same industry - they're only moving into it because it's a good idea they can steal.
Yes, you're right- you're method has worked for decades, but there is a reason it will fail now. The reason can be seen by looking at the loosening of media ownership rules. Or looking at how WorldComm can totally fuck us, and still get some of the biggest government contracts in history. The corporations are bigger than ever, and more and more they can do whatever they want. That sort of negates a, b and c.
NetFlix is a good example again - they're not trying to control an industry (movie rentals), only a very specific method and niche in that industry. Ok, they'd love to control the industry, but you see my point. This is why I'm torn - you make a good point, but shouldn't they get at least a couple years of profit, instead of just developing the idea and proving it works, only to have it taken over by Wal-Mart before they make a dime? Look at mini-dish satellite TV service. They were protected from competition for a few years because they made the investment in launching the satellite.
This is where I have a different view than most, I guess. To me, the little guy could be a million dollar company. I'm not talking about my buddy that builds 8 or 10 PC's a month out of his house, I'm talking about small business - the #1 employer in the U.S. - maybe they have 3 employees or maybe they have 500. Most of the small businesses I'm talking about would not have a problem with wisely investing $5k to buy a few years of protection for a good idea that they believe in. If it's going to be stolen right at the moment that they start turning a profit, you're looking at a lot of businesses getting squeezed out - the businesses that employ most of us.
You make a lot of good points, but I disagree, and I think you quoted me out of context.
As I said immediately before the quote, I think the biggest value to the public of this information is the fact that it exists and that this can be done, and the beneficial uses of this information could be satisfied by its publicly available pieced that were used to compile it.
There is no shortage of studies on the "sociogeographic aspects of the information infrastructure", which unless I'm totally not understanding what you're talking about, has more to do with Internet access and broadband vs. dialup than infrastructure. Similar, but not the same.
As far as business philosophy goes, the quote you're referring to was "Catherine Allen, chief executive of BITS, the technology group for the financial services roundtable, said the attendees were "amazed" and "concerned" to see how interdependent their systems were." - an impression of a feeling relayed by the author of the article that is actually quoting only 2 words. My guess is they were amazed and concerned at how one strategic hit would give them a major headache, because they'd have to switch to back-up manual systems instead of the electronic systems that not only has made their lives easier, but also allows them to instantly transfer your funds while still not letting you access or earn interest on those funds for days. And thinking that anything is going to make corporate wonks stop fucking over the country for a few bucks is a nice thought, but come on. Be serious.
As far as unseen benefits, we're not talking about a new technology like the laser, we're talking about a roadmap to our infrastructure weaknesses. And even if we were talking about lasers, I don't think our country would have collapsed by now if someone had never invented one. But if someone had released info on how to knock out cell phone service in the Northeast in early 2001, there probably would have been 3 targets hit on 9/11. The cell phones are how those brave souls knew that they had to take back the last plane at all costs. And if they could have disrupted our infrastructure in coordination with the attacks, it could have thrown the whole country into a very, very dangerous panic.
My point is, all the info is already separately publicly available. The program and compiled data are being made available to vital, infrastructure dependent services like the banking industry, DOD and OHS. I respect your opinions, but personally, I'd like to see those guys have at least a head start on using this information before anyone with any motive can download it in a neatly compiled and searchable form. Then at least they'd have a chance at making sure there is no jugular *before* we expose it.
This is such a tough issue for me. On the one hand, this post makes a very valid point - businesses with new methods have thrived without the help of patents. But these days, there are so many more businesses where the business model essentially is the product, so why not have some sort of protection? Look at NetFlix. Nobody (including them) could make a go of online rentals, until they came up with a new method. Now if they have no protection, they can be wiped out in a matter of months by a corporate behemoth that has the resources to basically take their business out from under them once they're sure it will work.
Before you slam me for defending business model patents, understand that I'm just voicing the other side of the coin - and I don't mean that big companies should be protected - this can protect the little guy that can only become big with at least some temporary protection. I agree that there are massive abuses in all areas of patent law, but I don't think wiping out certain types or all of them is the answer. While big corporations may have perverted the patent system into being its bitch, if it's obliterated completely, then only the largest companies with the most resources will profit from innovation, and when that happens, there will be far fewer innovators.
...between all the pieces of information being publicly available and all the information being publicly available.
From most of the comments so far, it appears the majority of people seem to think that this guy's PhD took about as long to compile as mapping a route from coast to coast with MapQuest. Hello? I imagine there was quite a bit of work put into compiling this information, and that not just anyone would have the time, persistence or devotion to duplicate the complilation. So yes, there is a HUGE difference between the information being available scattered across the 'net and having it all compiled, cross referenced and searchable in one easily downloaded program.
And IMHO, you most definitely can had a compilation of 100% publicly available information be classified as a threat to national security.
And personally, I don't believe there is a "publicly beneficial" use for this info in its compiled form that couldn't be easily be satisfied with the publicly available pieces - if a link is severed, you only need the info for the area of the problem (where the tornado hit, for example), not for the whole country. And the utilities that would be effected and responsible for the repairs would have the info they need anyhow.
I think the biggest value to the public of this information is the fact that it exists and that this can be done. The information itself is only important to those who would protect it or exploit it.
"McBride, who is fluent in Japanese, will visit with several founding members to show them code samples in which the Linux open-source operating system allegedly violates SCO's Unix patents, said an SCO spokesman."
I wonder if he's dumb enough to think they'll sign a non-disclosure?
Ok, I take back everything I said - refilling them 5 times before buying a whole new printer isn't too bad - I thought you meant you should just buy the printer, use it until the cart.s ran out once and through the whole thing away and start over. My Bad:-)
You should have bought your cartridges at Wal Mart:-)
But seriously, Lexmark hasn't included full cartridges since they started making inkjets. They look the same, smell the same, and probably taste the same, but the actual milliliters are not the same.
If you really want to save money, refills are the way to go. The electronics and printheads on cartridges will last at least 3 or 4 times what they'll physically hold in ink. It can be messy, but it's both the cheapest and most environmentally conscience way to go.
Re:In cheap market, always buy a new printer, not
on
Lexmark DMCA Case Winds On
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Again, forget about the environment (I think you already did), but you may want to weigh those cartridges that came with your printer and then weigh a retail cartridge. Using a 'warehouse' site's specs and prices, the cheapest Lexmark Inkjet comes with a color cartridge with a duty cycle of 205 pages. The retail cartridge for that printer has a duty cycle of 275 pages. Let's just assume they aren't playing with the figures and use the mail order price of 32.95 for the cartridge. That puts a color page at about $0.12 each for the ink. Which puts the value of the cartridge that comes with the printer at $24.60. So they've screwed you for $8.35 on that included cartridge that is the "exact same type" as the replacement cartridge, which, by the way is enough to make it cheaper to buy replacement cartridges.
Now assuming you mail ordered it, think about shipping charges. How much more do you think it'll cost to ship a printer and cartridges instead of just the cartridges? Add it all up, and you're paying about double for your ink.
Now let's talk about the true costs of your disposable printer. How much oil do you think it takes to power the machinery to make that printer? Fuel the ships, planes and trucks to deliver it? Process the trees into packaging and paper? Burn the CD with the drivers and instructions? How long do you think the plastic components will take to decompose? What about the fumes from the manufacturing process?
Now sure, you'll get a nice shiny new printer that may outlast the perfectly good one you threw out with the garbage (I hope you covered it up with some regular trash so you don't get in trouble for trying to put electronics out with your household waste). But even if your old printer doesn't outlive the new cartridges you bought, you can always swap them into the new printer that you buy because you have to, not because you've been suckered into paying double for your ink just to get a free printer you didn't need. And in the extra 6 months to 3 years that you get out of your printer, prices will drop, specs will improve, and the REAL money you saved will more than pay for a better printer. And maybe by then the energy it took to make it won't be paid for in lives.
"the use of USPTO patent as soon as the Microsoft published for a method and a system to translate the immediate messages, in which the giant of software demonstrates how an English sender of speech can type ' hi ' in a IM and he ' Hello will be translated ' for a Hispanic container of speech."
If you're thinking of buying a new printer because it's cheaper than replacing your cartidges, consider this:
Forget for a moment what you're doing to the environment (just for a moment, then go sit in the corner and be ashamed of yourself for 5 minutes), those cartidges that come with that cheap printer are "starter" cartridges - even if you can't find the fine print where it says that. So if the ones that came with your printer lasted you 6 months, crack open your wallet and spend the $25-$75 for a new set of cartridges that will probably last you a year or two. It'll save you money in the long run, and you'll be putting a lot less plastic in a landfill somewhere.
All printer companies seem to use the same business model for consumer printers- sell the printer for practically nothing, and make the money on the cartridges.
Is it just me, or does it seem like there has to be some meeting of the minds among the manufacturers to keep it that way? I mean, why isn't there some rebel manufacturer making printers that cost 3 or 4 times as much, but take bulk ink/toner that would cost practically nothing?
...to learn that the Hooked on Phonics company was promising not to sell or rent customer's information while advertising it for sale in a trade magazine. Until I read the reason - "A company spokeswoman said the firm was simply slow to update its policy."
That's a big relief, because I was a little slow in updating my checkbook, and now that I think about it, I simply forgot that the account I wrote their check on was closed in 1996.
There are a lot of comments about this being any easy hole for the bad guys to exploit by simply forging some letterhead to get a seller's info for identity theft and the like.
First of all, I don't remember ever having given eBay my Social Security number, the Holy Grail of identity theft. Second, eBay is only going to respond to "verified requests" when they have a "good faith belief" that there is criminal activity or the threat of "imminent physical harm."
So, I would say at a minimum they're going to verify that the request comes from a real-life LEA - it only takes about 2 minutes to look up any LEA's address and phone number, and if it doesn't match, to call it any verify. They're not going to risk getting sued for millions for giving out your personal info to a stalker. Come in off the ledge folks.
From eBay's privacy policy: Legal Requests. eBay cooperates with law enforcement inquiries, as well as other third parties to enforce laws, such as: intellectual property rights, fraud and other rights, to help protect you and the eBay community from bad actors. Therefore, in response to a verified request by law enforcement or other government officials relating to a criminal investigation or alleged illegal activity, we can (and you authorize us to) disclose your name, city, state, telephone number, email address, UserID history, fraud complaints, and bidding and listing history without a subpoena. Without limiting the above, in an effort to respect your privacy and our ability to keep the community free from bad actors, we will not otherwise disclose your personal information to law enforcement or other government officials without a subpoena, court order or substantially similar legal procedure, except when we believe in good faith that the disclosure of information is necessary to: prevent imminent physical harm or financial loss; or report suspected illegal activity. Further, we can (and you authorize us to) disclose your name, street address, city, state, zip code, country, phone number, email, and company name to eBay VeRO Program participants under confidentiality agreement, as we in our sole discretion believe necessary or appropriate in connection with an investigation of fraud, intellectual property infringement, piracy, or other unlawful activity."
Those comments were made last winter, so those of you (like me) feeling a sense of Deja Vu - there's a reason.
According to PayPal's privacy policy, your banking info and everything else is safe unless the request is backed by a warrant or court order. It is interesting to note that they do reserve the right to give some of your info to your victims if they find that you've committed a fraud.
Here's the (IMO) relevent passages from the section outlining exceptions to the rule that they don't share your info:
"We disclose information that we in good faith believe is appropriate to cooperate in investigations of fraud or other illegal activity, or to conduct investigations of violations of our User Agreement. Specifically, this means that if we conduct a fraud investigation and conclude that one side has engaged in deceptive practices, we can give that person or entity's contact information (but not bank account or credit card information) to victims who request it.
We disclose information in response to a subpoena, warrant, court order, levy, attachment, order of a court-appointed receiver or other comparable legal process, including subpoenas from private parties in a civil action. "
I tried to find a comment on this issue, but didn't see one. Sorry if I missed one.
This has nothing to do with WiFi. The data was on the network and not even password protected. Take the WiFi out of the equation, and from what I read in the article, anyone, even a student in the library, could have accessed this info. Teachers shouldn't even have access to the psych evals unless there's a reason and they get permission. The board's own policy says that pictures of the kids shouldn't be stored on the network. The point is those files were supposed to be in a locked down area of the network, and they weren't. Even if they were, the individual files should also have been password protected, in addition to the volume they were on.
And as far as the newspaper getting in trouble, it seems to me that allowing guest access means that you're ok with guests connecting. I don't think there was much 'hacking' involved. If there was, they should get in trouble. Otherwise all I have to do is get a job as a freelance writer for a paper, and then I can do whatever the heck I want, and if I get caught, then I just say I'm working on a story. That's BS.
You want to do this kind of investigating, you should accept the risks. If you want a by-line and glory, you deserve what you get. Sometimes doing the wrong thing for a good reason is needed - but if you don't punish people when they're caught, it's going to get out of hand.
Slashdot Mirror
I went to Diebold's voting machine site, and they seem to be proud that Georga's using (or going to use) their machines. Anyone want to call Georgia and let them know that the 'encyrpted' passwords can be cut and pasted between Access databases to add users who can change votes?
How many installations do you think are using the default password?
Can you drop ship them to every voting precinct in the U.S. and send the bill to 1600 Pennsyvania Ave.? Thanks! GWB ps- is a check from Halliburton ok?
LOL No, I just think that if someone has a unique and innovative idea, they should be afforded at least some temporary protection. The fact that big business is too big is just the reason that it may be needed now, whereas before a company like Wal-Mart would stick to it's core business, and not "steal" an idea and venture into what is essentially unrelated to their current business focus. And please remember my original subject and message - I'm torn - I agree with most of the replies, and see plenty of reasons to not add to the fubar'd patent system. I only took this side because I didn't figure many people would. I love a good debate :-)
"...real business model executed by someone other than coke heads burning VC money like Southern Baptists with Metallica records"
:-)
ROTFLMAO
Good point. But Amazon had the one-click patent
Nothing is non-obvious once someone has done it. It's not transferring media over a network - it's subscription based DVD rentals. Flat fee for unlimited movies. If it was so old and obvious, why did so many try to rent movies online and fail?
Subscriptions for rentals - something you have to return is very novel, IMHO. And no amount of customer service or speedy website is going to allow them to compete with a corporation with virtually unlimited resources that isn't even in the same industry - they're only moving into it because it's a good idea they can steal.
Yes, you're right- you're method has worked for decades, but there is a reason it will fail now. The reason can be seen by looking at the loosening of media ownership rules. Or looking at how WorldComm can totally fuck us, and still get some of the biggest government contracts in history. The corporations are bigger than ever, and more and more they can do whatever they want. That sort of negates a, b and c.
NetFlix is a good example again - they're not trying to control an industry (movie rentals), only a very specific method and niche in that industry. Ok, they'd love to control the industry, but you see my point. This is why I'm torn - you make a good point, but shouldn't they get at least a couple years of profit, instead of just developing the idea and proving it works, only to have it taken over by Wal-Mart before they make a dime? Look at mini-dish satellite TV service. They were protected from competition for a few years because they made the investment in launching the satellite.
This is where I have a different view than most, I guess. To me, the little guy could be a million dollar company. I'm not talking about my buddy that builds 8 or 10 PC's a month out of his house, I'm talking about small business - the #1 employer in the U.S. - maybe they have 3 employees or maybe they have 500. Most of the small businesses I'm talking about would not have a problem with wisely investing $5k to buy a few years of protection for a good idea that they believe in. If it's going to be stolen right at the moment that they start turning a profit, you're looking at a lot of businesses getting squeezed out - the businesses that employ most of us.
You make a lot of good points, but I disagree, and I think you quoted me out of context.
As I said immediately before the quote, I think the biggest value to the public of this information is the fact that it exists and that this can be done, and the beneficial uses of this information could be satisfied by its publicly available pieced that were used to compile it.
There is no shortage of studies on the "sociogeographic aspects of the information infrastructure", which unless I'm totally not understanding what you're talking about, has more to do with Internet access and broadband vs. dialup than infrastructure. Similar, but not the same.
As far as business philosophy goes, the quote you're referring to was "Catherine Allen, chief executive of BITS, the technology group for the financial services roundtable, said the attendees were "amazed" and "concerned" to see how interdependent their systems were." - an impression of a feeling relayed by the author of the article that is actually quoting only 2 words. My guess is they were amazed and concerned at how one strategic hit would give them a major headache, because they'd have to switch to back-up manual systems instead of the electronic systems that not only has made their lives easier, but also allows them to instantly transfer your funds while still not letting you access or earn interest on those funds for days. And thinking that anything is going to make corporate wonks stop fucking over the country for a few bucks is a nice thought, but come on. Be serious.
As far as unseen benefits, we're not talking about a new technology like the laser, we're talking about a roadmap to our infrastructure weaknesses. And even if we were talking about lasers, I don't think our country would have collapsed by now if someone had never invented one. But if someone had released info on how to knock out cell phone service in the Northeast in early 2001, there probably would have been 3 targets hit on 9/11. The cell phones are how those brave souls knew that they had to take back the last plane at all costs. And if they could have disrupted our infrastructure in coordination with the attacks, it could have thrown the whole country into a very, very dangerous panic.
My point is, all the info is already separately publicly available. The program and compiled data are being made available to vital, infrastructure dependent services like the banking industry, DOD and OHS. I respect your opinions, but personally, I'd like to see those guys have at least a head start on using this information before anyone with any motive can download it in a neatly compiled and searchable form. Then at least they'd have a chance at making sure there is no jugular *before* we expose it.
This is such a tough issue for me. On the one hand, this post makes a very valid point - businesses with new methods have thrived without the help of patents. But these days, there are so many more businesses where the business model essentially is the product, so why not have some sort of protection? Look at NetFlix. Nobody (including them) could make a go of online rentals, until they came up with a new method. Now if they have no protection, they can be wiped out in a matter of months by a corporate behemoth that has the resources to basically take their business out from under them once they're sure it will work.
Before you slam me for defending business model patents, understand that I'm just voicing the other side of the coin - and I don't mean that big companies should be protected - this can protect the little guy that can only become big with at least some temporary protection. I agree that there are massive abuses in all areas of patent law, but I don't think wiping out certain types or all of them is the answer. While big corporations may have perverted the patent system into being its bitch, if it's obliterated completely, then only the largest companies with the most resources will profit from innovation, and when that happens, there will be far fewer innovators.
...between all the pieces of information being publicly available and all the information being publicly available.
From most of the comments so far, it appears the majority of people seem to think that this guy's PhD took about as long to compile as mapping a route from coast to coast with MapQuest. Hello? I imagine there was quite a bit of work put into compiling this information, and that not just anyone would have the time, persistence or devotion to duplicate the complilation. So yes, there is a HUGE difference between the information being available scattered across the 'net and having it all compiled, cross referenced and searchable in one easily downloaded program.
And IMHO, you most definitely can had a compilation of 100% publicly available information be classified as a threat to national security.
And personally, I don't believe there is a "publicly beneficial" use for this info in its compiled form that couldn't be easily be satisfied with the publicly available pieces - if a link is severed, you only need the info for the area of the problem (where the tornado hit, for example), not for the whole country. And the utilities that would be effected and responsible for the repairs would have the info they need anyhow.
I think the biggest value to the public of this information is the fact that it exists and that this can be done. The information itself is only important to those who would protect it or exploit it.
"McBride, who is fluent in Japanese, will visit with several founding members to show them code samples in which the Linux open-source operating system allegedly violates SCO's Unix patents, said an SCO spokesman."
I wonder if he's dumb enough to think they'll sign a non-disclosure?
Ok, I take back everything I said - refilling them 5 times before buying a whole new printer isn't too bad - I thought you meant you should just buy the printer, use it until the cart.s ran out once and through the whole thing away and start over. My Bad :-)
You should have bought your cartridges at Wal Mart :-)
But seriously, Lexmark hasn't included full cartridges since they started making inkjets. They look the same, smell the same, and probably taste the same, but the actual milliliters are not the same.
If you really want to save money, refills are the way to go. The electronics and printheads on cartridges will last at least 3 or 4 times what they'll physically hold in ink. It can be messy, but it's both the cheapest and most environmentally conscience way to go.
Again, forget about the environment (I think you already did), but you may want to weigh those cartridges that came with your printer and then weigh a retail cartridge. Using a 'warehouse' site's specs and prices, the cheapest Lexmark Inkjet comes with a color cartridge with a duty cycle of 205 pages. The retail cartridge for that printer has a duty cycle of 275 pages. Let's just assume they aren't playing with the figures and use the mail order price of 32.95 for the cartridge. That puts a color page at about $0.12 each for the ink. Which puts the value of the cartridge that comes with the printer at $24.60. So they've screwed you for $8.35 on that included cartridge that is the "exact same type" as the replacement cartridge, which, by the way is enough to make it cheaper to buy replacement cartridges.
Now assuming you mail ordered it, think about shipping charges. How much more do you think it'll cost to ship a printer and cartridges instead of just the cartridges? Add it all up, and you're paying about double for your ink.
Now let's talk about the true costs of your disposable printer. How much oil do you think it takes to power the machinery to make that printer? Fuel the ships, planes and trucks to deliver it? Process the trees into packaging and paper? Burn the CD with the drivers and instructions? How long do you think the plastic components will take to decompose? What about the fumes from the manufacturing process?
Now sure, you'll get a nice shiny new printer that may outlast the perfectly good one you threw out with the garbage (I hope you covered it up with some regular trash so you don't get in trouble for trying to put electronics out with your household waste). But even if your old printer doesn't outlive the new cartridges you bought, you can always swap them into the new printer that you buy because you have to, not because you've been suckered into paying double for your ink just to get a free printer you didn't need. And in the extra 6 months to 3 years that you get out of your printer, prices will drop, specs will improve, and the REAL money you saved will more than pay for a better printer. And maybe by then the energy it took to make it won't be paid for in lives.
2 SUV's, 0 Kids?
"the use of USPTO patent as soon as the Microsoft published for a method and a system to translate the immediate messages, in which the giant of software demonstrates how an English sender of speech can type ' hi ' in a IM and he ' Hello will be translated ' for a Hispanic container of speech."
If you're thinking of buying a new printer because it's cheaper than replacing your cartidges, consider this:
Forget for a moment what you're doing to the environment (just for a moment, then go sit in the corner and be ashamed of yourself for 5 minutes), those cartidges that come with that cheap printer are "starter" cartridges - even if you can't find the fine print where it says that. So if the ones that came with your printer lasted you 6 months, crack open your wallet and spend the $25-$75 for a new set of cartridges that will probably last you a year or two. It'll save you money in the long run, and you'll be putting a lot less plastic in a landfill somewhere.
All printer companies seem to use the same business model for consumer printers- sell the printer for practically nothing, and make the money on the cartridges.
Is it just me, or does it seem like there has to be some meeting of the minds among the manufacturers to keep it that way? I mean, why isn't there some rebel manufacturer making printers that cost 3 or 4 times as much, but take bulk ink/toner that would cost practically nothing?
...was the keyboard... like my old Vic20 :-)
...to learn that the Hooked on Phonics company was promising not to sell or rent customer's information while advertising it for sale in a trade magazine. Until I read the reason - "A company spokeswoman said the firm was simply slow to update its policy."
That's a big relief, because I was a little slow in updating my checkbook, and now that I think about it, I simply forgot that the account I wrote their check on was closed in 1996.
There are a lot of comments about this being any easy hole for the bad guys to exploit by simply forging some letterhead to get a seller's info for identity theft and the like.
First of all, I don't remember ever having given eBay my Social Security number, the Holy Grail of identity theft. Second, eBay is only going to respond to "verified requests" when they have a "good faith belief" that there is criminal activity or the threat of "imminent physical harm."
So, I would say at a minimum they're going to verify that the request comes from a real-life LEA - it only takes about 2 minutes to look up any LEA's address and phone number, and if it doesn't match, to call it any verify. They're not going to risk getting sued for millions for giving out your personal info to a stalker. Come in off the ledge folks.
From eBay's privacy policy:
Legal Requests. eBay cooperates with law enforcement inquiries, as well as other third parties to enforce laws, such as: intellectual property rights, fraud and other rights, to help protect you and the eBay community from bad actors. Therefore, in response to a verified request by law enforcement or other government officials relating to a criminal investigation or alleged illegal activity, we can (and you authorize us to) disclose your name, city, state, telephone number, email address, UserID history, fraud complaints, and bidding and listing history without a subpoena. Without limiting the above, in an effort to respect your privacy and our ability to keep the community free from bad actors, we will not otherwise disclose your personal information to law enforcement or other government officials without a subpoena, court order or substantially similar legal procedure, except when we believe in good faith that the disclosure of information is necessary to: prevent imminent physical harm or financial loss; or report suspected illegal activity. Further, we can (and you authorize us to) disclose your name, street address, city, state, zip code, country, phone number, email, and company name to eBay VeRO Program participants under confidentiality agreement, as we in our sole discretion believe necessary or appropriate in connection with an investigation of fraud, intellectual property infringement, piracy, or other unlawful activity."
Those comments were made last winter, so those of you (like me) feeling a sense of Deja Vu - there's a reason.
According to PayPal's privacy policy, your banking info and everything else is safe unless the request is backed by a warrant or court order. It is interesting to note that they do reserve the right to give some of your info to your victims if they find that you've committed a fraud.
Here's the (IMO) relevent passages from the section outlining exceptions to the rule that they don't share your info:
"We disclose information that we in good faith believe is appropriate to cooperate in investigations of fraud or other illegal activity, or to conduct investigations of violations of our User Agreement. Specifically, this means that if we conduct a fraud investigation and conclude that one side has engaged in deceptive practices, we can give that person or entity's contact information (but not bank account or credit card information) to victims who request it.
We disclose information in response to a subpoena, warrant, court order, levy, attachment, order of a court-appointed receiver or other comparable legal process, including subpoenas from private parties in a civil action. "
...as one of those games where you try and get the ball through the maze and in the hole.
"Honestly occifer, I'm not drunk, I was just dialing the FOP to make a donation"
I tried to find a comment on this issue, but didn't see one. Sorry if I missed one.
This has nothing to do with WiFi. The data was on the network and not even password protected. Take the WiFi out of the equation, and from what I read in the article, anyone, even a student in the library, could have accessed this info. Teachers shouldn't even have access to the psych evals unless there's a reason and they get permission. The board's own policy says that pictures of the kids shouldn't be stored on the network. The point is those files were supposed to be in a locked down area of the network, and they weren't. Even if they were, the individual files should also have been password protected, in addition to the volume they were on.
And as far as the newspaper getting in trouble, it seems to me that allowing guest access means that you're ok with guests connecting. I don't think there was much 'hacking' involved. If there was, they should get in trouble. Otherwise all I have to do is get a job as a freelance writer for a paper, and then I can do whatever the heck I want, and if I get caught, then I just say I'm working on a story. That's BS.
You want to do this kind of investigating, you should accept the risks. If you want a by-line and glory, you deserve what you get. Sometimes doing the wrong thing for a good reason is needed - but if you don't punish people when they're caught, it's going to get out of hand.
From the "Details" Page: "For example, at 100 Mhz, the SiS 55x offers the same computational power as a 233Mhz MMX."