Grandparent makes a point, though, that a vaguely worded law that would eoncompass a university as an ISP could potentially make that practice unlawful. I think there is some validity to request that congress is very careful about how they craft any legislation that may have unwanted effects. Personally, I think that congress should take a hands off approach and see how all of this develops. I detest the idea of the kind of extortion that you outlined, but at the same time I don't think that greater legislation is the answer.
I can somewhat agree with your problems here. I went to Ohio State Univeristy and later Illinios State University. Originally, I was majoring in computer science, but soon I changed my major to philosophy. I feel as though my experience in a variety of programs give me some insight to the higher education's perspective on the subject. Universities don't care to teach you anything about Windows or Linux or OS X. They want you to know what an operating system is and what it does in the most generic terms possible. They don't care if you know about TCP/IP in depth. They care that you know what the generic anatomy of a protocol is. Technical schools like IIT and Devry (from friends' and co-workers' reports) are basically the exact opposite.
The problem is that in the real world, IT Consulting is a matter of knowing some theory on top of some application on top of a solid foundation of problem solving skills and analytic thinking. Personally, I think that college cannot make a good computer geek. I love technology. I love experimenting with computers; breaking, fixing, reading, and learning. I used college as a means of developing my other skills and kept interest and employment in IT. Unfortunately, I think you are looking for characteristics that are not and cannot be taught, yet looking for higher education to teach them.
Actually it will last for 3 days. Each time zone (with mountain and central combined) reports at the same time on the same night. Then you'll be waiting for next year/quarter for another shot.
Your analogy is bad for several reasons. The teacher is analogous with the judge in this situation. The judge determines whether or not cameras and other devices are allowed in his/her courtroom. Similarly, the professor is in charge of what is and is not allowed in her classroom. Second, there is a legitimate reason for not allowing these devices in the class which (in the Professor's opinion) outweighs the usefulnes of the device. Your example is skewed in the opposite direction. Finally, the ADA is only applied to people that are disabled. While she may have to make accomodations for those people, she can still require that no one else brings a laptop.
I honestly have no clue, and I can see two points from the post. First, I can see your point that however many are out there it is eating up a lot of cost. Second, I can see the issue that all these people can be considered a threat to information security in the current system. I am not sure if both points were intended, but they are both important well taken.
After working in a large firm environment, I can tell you that it can be very difficult to get rid of workers, even when technology has displaced their entire function within the company. It is costly and a (in office terms) political nightmare. Most of these people get pushed to other positions rather than pushed out of the company. I understand that this is not the case in all places, but the last few places I have worked have definitely fit that scenario. Even if the FBI doesn't, replace unskilled filing people with skilled email administrators, security analysts, and architects. The salary differential is more than likely around 5:2.
I think the other point is much more formidable. How can security concerns for an email system outweigh those of employees manually handling documents all day long. I think this is a real problem for part of my argument. However, physical employee screening before and after the work day (which can definitely be read as a monetary concern) is a tradeoff for the same security issues needed for the email system. Also, the technology can control access and sending ability. Anyways, I am trying to think a way around this, and there really is no good answer except that this issue seems more fucosed on the level of security than the amount of money outlayed (although there is definitely a causal relationship between the two.
I agree, and for any basic company this is a non-issue. But once you factor in the level of security that needs to be in place for FBI usage, the price skyrockets. This isn't to say that the FBI has done much to date to ensure information security. In fact, I believe the missing laptops and other recent issues have given us fuel to believe that information security is a very low priority. However, I think an email system implementation for the FBI definitely requires information security implementation which is a definite cost inhibitor.
Also, don't take my continued posts on this topic as an attack at you. I don't think you have thus far, but I just wanted to say it. Usually if I start a discussion, I hate to let it drop without contributing further. I think a lot of what you said (especially in the post prior to this) has a lot of merit. You are absolutely correct that (as in the police example) a smaller workforce who are able to work more efficiently can be more capable than a large, disorganized workforce. However, the question can easily turn into: Is it more productive to give them faster cars or bigger guns, since we can only afford one or the other? Personally, I think email is a definite benefit to work production. I'm also fairly certain that the FBI has several chairs that cost $5,000 - $10,000 each and desks that cost 5X that much. While money is definitely not being spent wisely, these are problems in every business and government organization. That's where the real issue should reside.
Actually, I don't think a centralized email system within the FBI is a necessary work tool. Is it desired? Yes. Would such an ability provide benefit to agents to get their jobs done mroe effectively? Definitely. Would it do more than anything else on the laundry list of things to be funded? I honestly do not know. I wasn't intending to argue that email is a waste of money, but just that there is a potential for other avenues of spending to yield more results. However, to take on the last part of your comment, last time I checked, telephone was a pretty instant form of communication. Combine that with the prevelance of cell phones and I think most people should have instant access to anyone they really need to have contact with.
One more thing I would like you to keep in mind. The FBI cannot just plop a sendmail server out there, give it a base config, and let it go. Think about all the laptops containing confidential information that have come missing. Think of all the user education on "this is appropriate to send out" and "this is not appropriate to send out via email" as a great expense. Consider the ability to encrypt emails, the cost of its departmentwide implementation, and the cost of its upkeep and maintenance. Factor in the cost of contingency plans for all of these data safety issues and the probability of counter-espianage. Again, the issue isn't as simple as "We need email." It is an intermingled web of design, information security, and monetary commitments. I still stick to my original statement, that there may exist other expenses that take priority to this in both a monetary and manpower sense. If such expenses exist, then this isn't as much of an issue as it is played out to be.
I think you need to have a talk with out IT Director and Exchange Administrator. Maybe you could solver the discrepency of "We don't have enough money in our budget for a faster server with more storage for our emails."
I think you're taking the quote a bit out of context, and even if you aren't I do not see that your argument is necessarily true. Let me provide a counterexample to show you what I am thinking.
The FBI has a budget of x dollars. In that budget, they have to determine necessary expenses for all of their operations for the year. Which would do more to protect and help us as a country: email for all the employees or the ability to hire 2 extra people in the field? Couple that with exactly what you quoted. The FBI has an endless wishlist of things that they would like to have that would help them with their jobs and a limited budget to work within. Which ones get funded and which ones do not?
Personally, I am glad they don't have carte blanch on whatever they want. When departments and agencies can spend whatever they want, you find things like more expensive furniture and other forms of frivilous spending. I believe that the FBI has determined (right or wrong) that their money can be spent in other ways that will better serve their department's functionality. The war in Iraq and oil company profitts are just a red herring.
They were suing in a civil case. The article merely supposes that since the statue being referenced has both civil and criminal implications, there could be a potential for criminal litigation on the basis of this opinion. However, Posner is very specific and states that the opinion finds that this provision of the act is there to protect companies from disgruntled and renegade employees.
I think your point is very valid, but according to the judge's opinion it is not consistent with what is known about the facts. Again, I think that the issue you point out with the bagel analogy is the exact issue I have with the opinion. Here's a quote from Posner:
Citrin's breach of his duty of loyalty terminated his agency relationship (more precisely, terminated any rights he might have claimed as IAC's agent he could not by unilaterally terminating any duties he owed his principal gain an advantage!) and with it his authority to access the laptop, because the only basis of his authority had been that relationship.
Posner is basically stating that even before the formal termination of the employment contract, the relationship is destroyed by the Citrin's disloyalty. He further sites another opinion that defines the sort of disloyalty that is an automatic termination of the employment contract.
After rereading the opinion, it seems that the lower courts dropped the suit against Citrin on summary judgement. It seems like the ruling was more than likely focusing on his employment status and on the provision and interpretation of the employment contract where he was given the authority to return the laptop with all the data or to destroy the data. More than likely, the lower court found that if he was still employed, he was authorized to access the laptop and erase the files. Also, if he wasn't employed at the time, he was authorized to erase them under the employment contract.
Posner then states that the provision did not intend for him to erase files that they either needed for business and had no copies of or needed as evidence against him. This leads me to believe that the nature of the files were either work product or trade secrets that they intended to keep as evidence in case he was stealing clients or using the company's IP to drive his competative business.
Again, without the facts from the lower case, I am not positive about this and it seems mostly speculation. However, I don't think that those people who feel that this is a big issue understand the exact scope of this opinion.
I agree, but because the case originates in an employment at will state and because of the lack of a fact pattern, I am concerned in how the court is determining that the employment contract was broken. From the opinion, it seems that it was because the person had made a decision to quit the company caused the employment relationship to dissolve. However, there may be some facts missing or left implicit. Furthermore, the opinion states that the law includes the intent of keeping disgruntled programmers or admins from blowing away company files they have access to. The argument isn't that Citrin should be in trouble for blowing away his personal files and contacts from the laptop, but rather those files that were obtained, maintained, and altered in the course of his employment.
From the atricle, though, one of the things it points out is that the ruling is valid because it occurred after the termination of the employment contract. Without knowing the specifics, I know Illinois treats employment at will very loosely. It almost sounds like the court ruled that for all intents and purposes, when the employmee made the decision to go into business for himself he implicitly rescinded the employment contract. Thus, any actions occuring after this decision he was civilly liable for. Now again, this is from the rehash of the real opinion. I didn't really feel like digging for the actual opinion, but if the court did in fact reason this way, I think file deletion is the last thing we need to worry about from this case. I would worry more about things like "Your interview for a position with another company was your implicit termination of the employment contract."
Thanks for the correction. I couldn't remember the exact timeline, and thought the change came about on the G3s. Your elaboration is exactly the point I was trying to make. Change in hardware interface is just that and cannot usually be used as an indicator of change in software platform.
An even stronger argument is comparing the iPod's loss of Firewire to the desktop loss of SCSI. If you remember, all old macs were SCSI only. Then the G3s came along, and they went IDE (standard config). Interfaces come and go. Products need contant review and revision to determine what will be most effective both in sales and performance. Apple's done this before, and they didn't switch to Windows then.
It seems like you are combining some things in here. IANAL, but I have taken some law classes. If you refuse to comply with discovery motions in a civil case, you will not go to jail, but you will lose the case in summary judgement. The only exception I could imagine is if a judge were to find you in contempt of court, and even then you would only find yourself in jail for a day or so.
It is kinda amusing, as your descriptions reminds me of a movie (in MST3K, I think) where some guy's brain is exposed and the neuroscientist keeps touching it in a spot that forces a reflex of him slapping himself in the face. Luckily it seems like we are leaps and bounds beyond that kind of caveman experimentation.
Slashdot Mirror
Grandparent makes a point, though, that a vaguely worded law that would eoncompass a university as an ISP could potentially make that practice unlawful. I think there is some validity to request that congress is very careful about how they craft any legislation that may have unwanted effects. Personally, I think that congress should take a hands off approach and see how all of this develops. I detest the idea of the kind of extortion that you outlined, but at the same time I don't think that greater legislation is the answer.
I thought it said "Microsoft mass defications to Apple". Needless to say, I was quite confused.
I wasn't. I used to work with a coworker who went to IIT for CSE. He transferred in his second year. I did lump it into the wrong category though.
I can somewhat agree with your problems here. I went to Ohio State Univeristy and later Illinios State University. Originally, I was majoring in computer science, but soon I changed my major to philosophy. I feel as though my experience in a variety of programs give me some insight to the higher education's perspective on the subject. Universities don't care to teach you anything about Windows or Linux or OS X. They want you to know what an operating system is and what it does in the most generic terms possible. They don't care if you know about TCP/IP in depth. They care that you know what the generic anatomy of a protocol is. Technical schools like IIT and Devry (from friends' and co-workers' reports) are basically the exact opposite.
The problem is that in the real world, IT Consulting is a matter of knowing some theory on top of some application on top of a solid foundation of problem solving skills and analytic thinking. Personally, I think that college cannot make a good computer geek. I love technology. I love experimenting with computers; breaking, fixing, reading, and learning. I used college as a means of developing my other skills and kept interest and employment in IT. Unfortunately, I think you are looking for characteristics that are not and cannot be taught, yet looking for higher education to teach them.
I almost want to change my name to The Dread Slashdotter Steve now.
I think you're conflating two issues here. Sure, be biased in your replies and comments. However, when posting an article the bias should be removed.
Actually it will last for 3 days. Each time zone (with mountain and central combined) reports at the same time on the same night. Then you'll be waiting for next year/quarter for another shot.
Your analogy is bad for several reasons. The teacher is analogous with the judge in this situation. The judge determines whether or not cameras and other devices are allowed in his/her courtroom. Similarly, the professor is in charge of what is and is not allowed in her classroom. Second, there is a legitimate reason for not allowing these devices in the class which (in the Professor's opinion) outweighs the usefulnes of the device. Your example is skewed in the opposite direction. Finally, the ADA is only applied to people that are disabled. While she may have to make accomodations for those people, she can still require that no one else brings a laptop.
w00t for the Madeline L'Engle reference. Solid author.
I honestly have no clue, and I can see two points from the post. First, I can see your point that however many are out there it is eating up a lot of cost. Second, I can see the issue that all these people can be considered a threat to information security in the current system. I am not sure if both points were intended, but they are both important well taken.
After working in a large firm environment, I can tell you that it can be very difficult to get rid of workers, even when technology has displaced their entire function within the company. It is costly and a (in office terms) political nightmare. Most of these people get pushed to other positions rather than pushed out of the company. I understand that this is not the case in all places, but the last few places I have worked have definitely fit that scenario. Even if the FBI doesn't, replace unskilled filing people with skilled email administrators, security analysts, and architects. The salary differential is more than likely around 5:2.
I think the other point is much more formidable. How can security concerns for an email system outweigh those of employees manually handling documents all day long. I think this is a real problem for part of my argument. However, physical employee screening before and after the work day (which can definitely be read as a monetary concern) is a tradeoff for the same security issues needed for the email system. Also, the technology can control access and sending ability. Anyways, I am trying to think a way around this, and there really is no good answer except that this issue seems more fucosed on the level of security than the amount of money outlayed (although there is definitely a causal relationship between the two.
I agree, and for any basic company this is a non-issue. But once you factor in the level of security that needs to be in place for FBI usage, the price skyrockets. This isn't to say that the FBI has done much to date to ensure information security. In fact, I believe the missing laptops and other recent issues have given us fuel to believe that information security is a very low priority. However, I think an email system implementation for the FBI definitely requires information security implementation which is a definite cost inhibitor.
Also, don't take my continued posts on this topic as an attack at you. I don't think you have thus far, but I just wanted to say it. Usually if I start a discussion, I hate to let it drop without contributing further. I think a lot of what you said (especially in the post prior to this) has a lot of merit. You are absolutely correct that (as in the police example) a smaller workforce who are able to work more efficiently can be more capable than a large, disorganized workforce. However, the question can easily turn into: Is it more productive to give them faster cars or bigger guns, since we can only afford one or the other? Personally, I think email is a definite benefit to work production. I'm also fairly certain that the FBI has several chairs that cost $5,000 - $10,000 each and desks that cost 5X that much. While money is definitely not being spent wisely, these are problems in every business and government organization. That's where the real issue should reside.
Actually, I don't think a centralized email system within the FBI is a necessary work tool. Is it desired? Yes. Would such an ability provide benefit to agents to get their jobs done mroe effectively? Definitely. Would it do more than anything else on the laundry list of things to be funded? I honestly do not know. I wasn't intending to argue that email is a waste of money, but just that there is a potential for other avenues of spending to yield more results. However, to take on the last part of your comment, last time I checked, telephone was a pretty instant form of communication. Combine that with the prevelance of cell phones and I think most people should have instant access to anyone they really need to have contact with.
One more thing I would like you to keep in mind. The FBI cannot just plop a sendmail server out there, give it a base config, and let it go. Think about all the laptops containing confidential information that have come missing. Think of all the user education on "this is appropriate to send out" and "this is not appropriate to send out via email" as a great expense. Consider the ability to encrypt emails, the cost of its departmentwide implementation, and the cost of its upkeep and maintenance. Factor in the cost of contingency plans for all of these data safety issues and the probability of counter-espianage. Again, the issue isn't as simple as "We need email." It is an intermingled web of design, information security, and monetary commitments. I still stick to my original statement, that there may exist other expenses that take priority to this in both a monetary and manpower sense. If such expenses exist, then this isn't as much of an issue as it is played out to be.
I think you need to have a talk with out IT Director and Exchange Administrator. Maybe you could solver the discrepency of "We don't have enough money in our budget for a faster server with more storage for our emails."
I think you're taking the quote a bit out of context, and even if you aren't I do not see that your argument is necessarily true. Let me provide a counterexample to show you what I am thinking.
The FBI has a budget of x dollars. In that budget, they have to determine necessary expenses for all of their operations for the year. Which would do more to protect and help us as a country: email for all the employees or the ability to hire 2 extra people in the field? Couple that with exactly what you quoted. The FBI has an endless wishlist of things that they would like to have that would help them with their jobs and a limited budget to work within. Which ones get funded and which ones do not?
Personally, I am glad they don't have carte blanch on whatever they want. When departments and agencies can spend whatever they want, you find things like more expensive furniture and other forms of frivilous spending. I believe that the FBI has determined (right or wrong) that their money can be spent in other ways that will better serve their department's functionality. The war in Iraq and oil company profitts are just a red herring.
If I had mod points, I woulda modded it up. I got a good chuckle out of it.
I'm trying to think of an amusing reply whereby i fit the criteria barely bacause of manboobs, but I am scared of giving off the wrong idea.
Brain: Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking? Pinky: I think so Brain but where are we going to find rubber pants and sod at this time of night?
They were suing in a civil case. The article merely supposes that since the statue being referenced has both civil and criminal implications, there could be a potential for criminal litigation on the basis of this opinion. However, Posner is very specific and states that the opinion finds that this provision of the act is there to protect companies from disgruntled and renegade employees.
Posner is basically stating that even before the formal termination of the employment contract, the relationship is destroyed by the Citrin's disloyalty. He further sites another opinion that defines the sort of disloyalty that is an automatic termination of the employment contract.
After rereading the opinion, it seems that the lower courts dropped the suit against Citrin on summary judgement. It seems like the ruling was more than likely focusing on his employment status and on the provision and interpretation of the employment contract where he was given the authority to return the laptop with all the data or to destroy the data. More than likely, the lower court found that if he was still employed, he was authorized to access the laptop and erase the files. Also, if he wasn't employed at the time, he was authorized to erase them under the employment contract.
Posner then states that the provision did not intend for him to erase files that they either needed for business and had no copies of or needed as evidence against him. This leads me to believe that the nature of the files were either work product or trade secrets that they intended to keep as evidence in case he was stealing clients or using the company's IP to drive his competative business.
Again, without the facts from the lower case, I am not positive about this and it seems mostly speculation. However, I don't think that those people who feel that this is a big issue understand the exact scope of this opinion.
I agree, but because the case originates in an employment at will state and because of the lack of a fact pattern, I am concerned in how the court is determining that the employment contract was broken. From the opinion, it seems that it was because the person had made a decision to quit the company caused the employment relationship to dissolve. However, there may be some facts missing or left implicit. Furthermore, the opinion states that the law includes the intent of keeping disgruntled programmers or admins from blowing away company files they have access to. The argument isn't that Citrin should be in trouble for blowing away his personal files and contacts from the laptop, but rather those files that were obtained, maintained, and altered in the course of his employment.
From the atricle, though, one of the things it points out is that the ruling is valid because it occurred after the termination of the employment contract. Without knowing the specifics, I know Illinois treats employment at will very loosely. It almost sounds like the court ruled that for all intents and purposes, when the employmee made the decision to go into business for himself he implicitly rescinded the employment contract. Thus, any actions occuring after this decision he was civilly liable for. Now again, this is from the rehash of the real opinion. I didn't really feel like digging for the actual opinion, but if the court did in fact reason this way, I think file deletion is the last thing we need to worry about from this case. I would worry more about things like "Your interview for a position with another company was your implicit termination of the employment contract."
Thanks for the correction. I couldn't remember the exact timeline, and thought the change came about on the G3s. Your elaboration is exactly the point I was trying to make. Change in hardware interface is just that and cannot usually be used as an indicator of change in software platform.
An even stronger argument is comparing the iPod's loss of Firewire to the desktop loss of SCSI. If you remember, all old macs were SCSI only. Then the G3s came along, and they went IDE (standard config). Interfaces come and go. Products need contant review and revision to determine what will be most effective both in sales and performance. Apple's done this before, and they didn't switch to Windows then.
It seems like you are combining some things in here. IANAL, but I have taken some law classes. If you refuse to comply with discovery motions in a civil case, you will not go to jail, but you will lose the case in summary judgement. The only exception I could imagine is if a judge were to find you in contempt of court, and even then you would only find yourself in jail for a day or so.
It is kinda amusing, as your descriptions reminds me of a movie (in MST3K, I think) where some guy's brain is exposed and the neuroscientist keeps touching it in a spot that forces a reflex of him slapping himself in the face. Luckily it seems like we are leaps and bounds beyond that kind of caveman experimentation.