TFA doesn't tell how the images where found, but if it's the IT dep following a crash, it is an accident, and I doubt that a director would have the same treatment.
If I were an IT employee in that case, I'd just quietly delete the pr0n, then invite the employee out to the rowdiest bar in town, give him a brief talking to, and then hope that he gets some action that's not of the playing-the-one-note-flute variety.
They sign this in person. Our Compliance Office also has automated systems that require staff to periodically review training sessions that cover important topics and these are signed electronically. You're pretty much screwed if you do what this guy did. We have good lawyers and much better systems in the last 10 years...
As long as the pr0n watching is done with the office door closed and the employee is pulling his weight in the company, why should it matter to the management? The money spent for "better systems" to spy on employees could be spent better in any number of ways. If you don't know what to do with the money, give it to a charity or raise your employees' salaries.
As far as "training sessions", blah. One more example of the psychiatracracy that's pervading American society. By all means, have meetings about what project goals are, progress, etc are. But don't turn them into fucking political indoctrination sessions, hear?
Did you write code to regulate clock frequency so as to regulate temp. in order to avoid the production of methanol? Unlike masturbation, bad moonshine *can* really make you go blind!
If a coworker sees it and is offended, it can be considered sexual harassment, creating a hostile working environment, or any number of other whiny things that HR doesn't want to deal with.
This was on a laptop. Who says that the pr0n was being viewed during working hours or even in the office? The laptop should be re-imaged before being given to another employee anyway.
So, I think most of us can agree, porn at work == bad
If the laptop was his and his alone to use, then why is it a bad thing (or a good thing)? Especially if there's spyware and virus protection on the computer and he doesn't catch anything bad. As far as data, there should be a corporate data directory that's autosynched to the company servers regularly, whenever he's connected to the company net or VPN. The laptop should be wiped before being given to the next employee anyway, as a matter of policy, if only because he could have been typing perfectly innocuous personal documents on it with an expectation of privacy or because certain work-related data on the laptop might not be meant for the new "owner" anyway.
Odds are that he is likely to be bound by a non-disclosure agreement regarding the network and data situation at the company, as well.
If not reporting the breach is a criminal act, the NDA might be trumped by criminal law. For example, an NDA created by the Mafia that requires employees not to disclose murders to anyone outside the organization wouldn't stand up in court:)
I agree with all posters who say that he should CYA and document everything. But is he liable for not reporting that a federal law has been broken?
I think that it's the choice of the parties aggrieved by the crime. However, the company whose data was leaked should be informed since they're one of those parties, and it's their decision as well. What may be a bigger problem is data protection laws that require the owner of the data to be informed. If management fails to inform the owners of the company whose data it is, they may be committing a crime. And failure to inform of a crime when you stand to profit from it might be considered being an accessory.
Not informing the customers is the decision of the executives, and any resulting problems this causes are therefore their responsibility.
Well, if not informing the clients violates some data protection laws (as another poster said it did in Calif.) the management might be committing a criminal offense by not reporting the breach. If he knows about it, he'd be obligated to report this to the police. Otherwise he might be charged with being an accessory or abetting the crime if criminal charges were ever filed. And a criminal prosecution for corporate misdeeds isn't a great thing to have on your resume.
If you don't know the answers, why are you selling yourself as an expert to this poor school?
He may be an expert in networking, but there's nothing wrong with seeking advice from others. You may even learns something or see a new product that you didn't realize existed.
Your phone system box and your phone system switch go on UPS and then hopefully generator power beyond that - getting more common in higher education anyway.
This assumes that the cause of power loss is due to the power company, not due to (say) a fire in the building that could take out the generator as well. The phone company's battery backup systems are more reliable than anything you could ever concoct. Besides, in the case of a severe blackout, who's to say that some Internet switching equipment won't become unavailable? I'd say that having one (or a few) POTS lines going out for 911 and those times when VOIP is being worked on/is down isn't a horrible idea.
It's hard to really respect any large corporation when their sole reason for existing is acquiring your money. Deceptive advertising, faux-sales/deals, faulty products, low quality of service, etc. Those are the norm, not the exception. So if I'm late on a payment or otherwise piss off a large corporation, all the power to me.
I know. It's just that the attitude towards large corps translates into the same attitude towards small "mom-and-pop" businesses. Which really sucks for the owners of those businesses who aren't often wealthy and can't eat random losses.
I'm talking about help for small, up and coming firms that innovate, create jobs, and add wealth to their community. The bigs corps don't do this: they continually cut jobs, thy don't innovate, they keep small companies from innovating by suing them over IP, and they move captial overseas and out of this country.
Not to mention that more small firms add to the wealth of Americans themselves and bolster the middle class. It's one thing to be an employee. It's quite another to have your own company and have something to be able to sell in 20 years to retire upon. The second half of the problem is that Americans have developed a very anti-corporate attitude due to the excesses of the large firms. This translates to smaller businesses unfortunately ("it's ok if we're late with that bill - they're just a company" - nevermind the people behind the company). If more Americans were "landowners" rather than "peasants" this attitude would disappear overnight.
It's bad enough to bleed money into the military to fight random wars, we need not lose it in other ways. Especially since there is more vital science to be had.
This is worse than fighting random wars? I don't hear about this telescope killing a few dozen Americans per week.
On the one hand we can learn to grow better crops, treat diesease and advance physics, on the other we can build really large [brute force] radio telescopy to take better pictures of things that were going on, supposedly, billions of years ago.
There's money for it all and more within the current budget if we stopped spending money on things liek unnecessary wars, prisons for non-violent offenders, the joke on the American people that is the War on Drugs, etc...
Problem is, the money saved will probably only cover the costs of a few hours...
So just cut all federal funding to the universities. It might give us another month over there... (Oh wait, we are already cutting academic funding except for security-related research).
This tidbit of information serves no purpose other than to link the key person in the story to someone that the majority of the readership already despises. Just tell us what to think next time instead of using (not so) subtle hints.
If the judge had had the same surname as Mother Theresa and the article said that they were related, would you have been offended too? This is just stating an answer to a question that's guaranteed to be asked?
Save money there so there'll be more money for the war in Eastasia^W Iraq. It's not like the proles will really notice unless you take away their telescreens.
. It is actually better than google in that the results are about equal but you get less spam ads and there image search leaves googles stuff for dead.
You mean the "look" of the image search site or the content returned? I see very little difference in the content returned. But the look of the site sucks. It's much more data-intensive, and thus slower, even over a broadband connection. And who the hell needs images that expand in an animated manner when you mouse over them or flashy menubars? The only thing that M$N search might have going for it is the search macros feature that allows for the creation of more customized searches. Google, OTOH, is fast and viewable on any (even ancient) browsers. M$N search seems like more bloatware from a company that specializes in it.
If I have to move off Manhattan, well, that's okay. The house I grew up in is 60 miles north of the city, and about 600 feet above sea level. Besides, I believe that there is pleanty of room for all of us on this planet; loss of space or not. We could simply build up, and convert many of the suburbs into farm land.
Have you considered the costs of rebuilding our cities more inland? Those might pale compared to the costs of us getting off of the oil tit. This doesn't even mention the fact that most of our heavy industries are within 10 miles of a coast. If that (oft-polluted) land gets flooded, we all lose due to ocean contamination.
And it won't be a nice process. There'll be severe storms, deaths, riots, etc...
The problem with the tax, is not necessarily for people like myself. I'm, in effect, taxing myself by volunteering to pay the extra 6 cents per KWH to have ConEdison send me clean power. I'm concerned about those folks up in Harlem and the South Bronx. The poor can not afford that tax, and there are a lot of them in places between New York and LA.
So give them an energy subsidy, or subsidize their purchase of compact fluorescents for them or something. We already subsidize their housing. Besides what do you really care about them? You talk so casually about yourself having a house to move to when you get flooded off of Manhattan. But what about the poor that have *nowhere* to go (think New Orleans, except if New York swims, it'll also be Boston, DC, Baltimore, New Haven, Philly, LA, etc...). Would you shelter a band of them in your house if you find one. Actually, they probably wouldn't give you a choice - they'll just kick down your door with guns in hand and tell you to leave.
At least give him the chair or lethal injection or something.
Their country, their law, their choice. BTW- from what I've heard, a properly-executed (no pun intended) hanging is quicker to kill the condemned than either electrocution or lethal injection. And it's less likely to be screwed up than "modern" methods.
If they really wanted to be "humane" they'd behead the guy by guillotine. There's no doubt of death and the method is quick and basically foolproof assuming a sharp blade.
If his cronies get control of Iraq again that means the whole multinational force is worth nothing.
An organized army is *generally* worthless against determined guerrillas that have lived there all their lives and thus know the land and the best hiding spots. Successful guerrillas also have the support of some fraction of the populace and can blend in easily. Also, we're not fighting an old-fashioned war of conquest. We're, supposedly at least, trying to win friends in Iraq and "liberate" the people. This means that our options as far as punishment for guerrilla attacks on our troops are (fortunately for the Iraqis) somewhat limited. So fighting this war isn't an easy task, especially because former professional soldiers are mixed in with the guerrillas.
You think anyone should use London as an example of a sane public transport system? And yes it's still a crap place to live.
Replace London with Britain actually. You'd think with all of the bizarre laws that are being put in place in Britain these days (ASBOs, banning of anything even remotely dangerous, etc) that Guy Fawkes had the right idea nearly 400 years ago.
What would you do if all cars had the transponders and they were not mandated?
If they'd not be mandated and there was no legal consequence for turning the transponder off or making it unable to communicate, I'd simply turn mine off. It's doable with things like On*Star from GM, and I'd rather take the infinitisimal risk of running off the road, hitting a tree and bleeding to death before an ambulance comes than be tracked all the time. As long as it's not mandated by law and there's no consequence other than a decrease in personal safety for turning it off, it doesn't raise my ire too much.
Let me get a couple of points out... I think CO2 is not a pollutant, and I think that Global Warming is a natural event.
Agreed about the first part. I was talking about pollution at ground level (aka smog) from burning fossil fuels (or anything, really). NOx, hydrocarbons, and chemical reactions that produce low-level ozone (which hurts lungs but doesn't rebuild the ozone layer).
Personally, I pay 30% more for my electricity to have it come from wind/solar/hydro. I do not feel that everyone should be forced to do that, but that we should create a situation that would make folks want to do that.
There's the also the nuclear energy option. Also, currently wind, solar, and nuclear are expensive because the plants are unique and not really standardized. No economies of scale there. If we come up with more standardized plant designs, costs will go down. Also, it's relatively easy to use 30% less energy, believe it or not. If you're in the country, hang your wash out to dry instead of using a heated dryer. Replace lights with compact fluorescents. Heat your house to 65-68F in winter, cool to 75-78F in summer and dress appropriately for the season.
I think it's foolish to believe that people in general, and Americans in particular, will give up their cars.
Who says that they'd have to? Most trips are under 50 miles. So you could have hybrids that run on electricity 95% of the time from batteries and use either a fossil-fuel powered engine and generator or fuel cells to recharge the battery pack the other 5% of the time when you're going on long trips. The auxiliary power source could even be removable to make for more trunk space when it's not being used.
The precautionary principle that you suggest with your idea a, I do not support. It's not that I think that Global Warming won't prove to be a problem. I think for some humans/parts of the world, it will be. For others, it will be a boon. Siberia will likely warm turning it into another breadbasket for the world.
Problem is that some of the more equatorial areas might become so hot as to be uninhabitable, at least without a considerable outlay in energy for cooling. Which would cause more CO2 release, at least with current technology... We'd also experience a net loss in usable land area on Earth - not good with a growing population. In fact, how'd you like it if our (yes, me too:) beloved Manhattan island would be submerged or at least have to be protected by levees which could breach (or be blown up) at any time.
In summary, my point is that I support alternative fuels as the solution, and am afraid of the idea of limiting energy usage. The latter I think is a terrible waste of money.
But I never said anything about limiting energy usage. I was discussion taxing gasoline so as to limit *gasoline* usage gradually over a period of decades. Gradually so as to allow alternative technologies to be introduced to replace gasoline.
It looks likely that Bloomberg's administration will spend its last years following London's example, perhaps even going so far as to turn whole sections of Manhattan into pedestrian-only zones.
Just please don't institute the *fucking obnoxious* system of congestion charging that Red Kenny Livingstone saw fit to introduce in London. Using automated cameras to recognize and record license plates has major privacy implications. And there's already a working system of congestion charging for vehicles entering Manhattan in place - it's called tolls on the bridges and tunnels. Fortunately, Manhattan is an island. If you really wanted to, you could raise and lower the tolls depending on the time of day/week.
I wouldn't even be opposed to all-electronic toll collection provided that you could buy pre-paid RFID cards payable by cash to stick on your windshield. After all, cash toll plazas could have auto license plate recognition cameras as well, so the privacy implications provided that cash can be paid are pretty small.
London is one of the places in the world with the least amount of privacy for its citizens (subjects?). Let's not emulate all of the misguided "reforms" that Livingstone chooses to implement. There is, after all, a reason why the USA seceded from England 230 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
If I were an IT employee in that case, I'd just quietly delete the pr0n, then invite the employee out to the rowdiest bar in town, give him a brief talking to, and then hope that he gets some action that's not of the playing-the-one-note-flute variety.
-b.
As long as the pr0n watching is done with the office door closed and the employee is pulling his weight in the company, why should it matter to the management? The money spent for "better systems" to spy on employees could be spent better in any number of ways. If you don't know what to do with the money, give it to a charity or raise your employees' salaries.
As far as "training sessions", blah. One more example of the psychiatracracy that's pervading American society. By all means, have meetings about what project goals are, progress, etc are. But don't turn them into fucking political indoctrination sessions, hear?
-b.
Did you write code to regulate clock frequency so as to regulate temp. in order to avoid the production of methanol? Unlike masturbation, bad moonshine *can* really make you go blind!
-b.
This was on a laptop. Who says that the pr0n was being viewed during working hours or even in the office? The laptop should be re-imaged before being given to another employee anyway.
-b.
If the laptop was his and his alone to use, then why is it a bad thing (or a good thing)? Especially if there's spyware and virus protection on the computer and he doesn't catch anything bad. As far as data, there should be a corporate data directory that's autosynched to the company servers regularly, whenever he's connected to the company net or VPN. The laptop should be wiped before being given to the next employee anyway, as a matter of policy, if only because he could have been typing perfectly innocuous personal documents on it with an expectation of privacy or because certain work-related data on the laptop might not be meant for the new "owner" anyway.
-b.
If not reporting the breach is a criminal act, the NDA might be trumped by criminal law. For example, an NDA created by the Mafia that requires employees not to disclose murders to anyone outside the organization wouldn't stand up in court :)
-b.
I think that it's the choice of the parties aggrieved by the crime. However, the company whose data was leaked should be informed since they're one of those parties, and it's their decision as well. What may be a bigger problem is data protection laws that require the owner of the data to be informed. If management fails to inform the owners of the company whose data it is, they may be committing a crime. And failure to inform of a crime when you stand to profit from it might be considered being an accessory.
-b.
Well, if not informing the clients violates some data protection laws (as another poster said it did in Calif.) the management might be committing a criminal offense by not reporting the breach. If he knows about it, he'd be obligated to report this to the police. Otherwise he might be charged with being an accessory or abetting the crime if criminal charges were ever filed. And a criminal prosecution for corporate misdeeds isn't a great thing to have on your resume.
-b.
He may be an expert in networking, but there's nothing wrong with seeking advice from others. You may even learns something or see a new product that you didn't realize existed.
-b.
This assumes that the cause of power loss is due to the power company, not due to (say) a fire in the building that could take out the generator as well. The phone company's battery backup systems are more reliable than anything you could ever concoct. Besides, in the case of a severe blackout, who's to say that some Internet switching equipment won't become unavailable? I'd say that having one (or a few) POTS lines going out for 911 and those times when VOIP is being worked on/is down isn't a horrible idea.
-b.
I know. It's just that the attitude towards large corps translates into the same attitude towards small "mom-and-pop" businesses. Which really sucks for the owners of those businesses who aren't often wealthy and can't eat random losses.
-b.
Not to mention that more small firms add to the wealth of Americans themselves and bolster the middle class. It's one thing to be an employee. It's quite another to have your own company and have something to be able to sell in 20 years to retire upon. The second half of the problem is that Americans have developed a very anti-corporate attitude due to the excesses of the large firms. This translates to smaller businesses unfortunately ("it's ok if we're late with that bill - they're just a company" - nevermind the people behind the company). If more Americans were "landowners" rather than "peasants" this attitude would disappear overnight.
-b.
This is worse than fighting random wars? I don't hear about this telescope killing a few dozen Americans per week.
On the one hand we can learn to grow better crops, treat diesease and advance physics, on the other we can build really large [brute force] radio telescopy to take better pictures of things that were going on, supposedly, billions of years ago.
There's money for it all and more within the current budget if we stopped spending money on things liek unnecessary wars, prisons for non-violent offenders, the joke on the American people that is the War on Drugs, etc...
-b.
Was making a 1984/Orwell joke...
-b.
So just cut all federal funding to the universities. It might give us another month over there... (Oh wait, we are already cutting academic funding except for security-related research).
-b.
If the judge had had the same surname as Mother Theresa and the article said that they were related, would you have been offended too? This is just stating an answer to a question that's guaranteed to be asked?
-b.
-b.
You mean the "look" of the image search site or the content returned? I see very little difference in the content returned. But the look of the site sucks. It's much more data-intensive, and thus slower, even over a broadband connection. And who the hell needs images that expand in an animated manner when you mouse over them or flashy menubars? The only thing that M$N search might have going for it is the search macros feature that allows for the creation of more customized searches. Google, OTOH, is fast and viewable on any (even ancient) browsers. M$N search seems like more bloatware from a company that specializes in it.
-b.
Have you considered the costs of rebuilding our cities more inland? Those might pale compared to the costs of us getting off of the oil tit. This doesn't even mention the fact that most of our heavy industries are within 10 miles of a coast. If that (oft-polluted) land gets flooded, we all lose due to ocean contamination.
And it won't be a nice process. There'll be severe storms, deaths, riots, etc...
The problem with the tax, is not necessarily for people like myself. I'm, in effect, taxing myself by volunteering to pay the extra 6 cents per KWH to have ConEdison send me clean power. I'm concerned about those folks up in Harlem and the South Bronx. The poor can not afford that tax, and there are a lot of them in places between New York and LA.
So give them an energy subsidy, or subsidize their purchase of compact fluorescents for them or something. We already subsidize their housing. Besides what do you really care about them? You talk so casually about yourself having a house to move to when you get flooded off of Manhattan. But what about the poor that have *nowhere* to go (think New Orleans, except if New York swims, it'll also be Boston, DC, Baltimore, New Haven, Philly, LA, etc...). Would you shelter a band of them in your house if you find one. Actually, they probably wouldn't give you a choice - they'll just kick down your door with guns in hand and tell you to leave.
-b.
Their country, their law, their choice. BTW- from what I've heard, a properly-executed (no pun intended) hanging is quicker to kill the condemned than either electrocution or lethal injection. And it's less likely to be screwed up than "modern" methods.
If they really wanted to be "humane" they'd behead the guy by guillotine. There's no doubt of death and the method is quick and basically foolproof assuming a sharp blade.
-b.
An organized army is *generally* worthless against determined guerrillas that have lived there all their lives and thus know the land and the best hiding spots. Successful guerrillas also have the support of some fraction of the populace and can blend in easily. Also, we're not fighting an old-fashioned war of conquest. We're, supposedly at least, trying to win friends in Iraq and "liberate" the people. This means that our options as far as punishment for guerrilla attacks on our troops are (fortunately for the Iraqis) somewhat limited. So fighting this war isn't an easy task, especially because former professional soldiers are mixed in with the guerrillas.
-b.
Replace London with Britain actually. You'd think with all of the bizarre laws that are being put in place in Britain these days (ASBOs, banning of anything even remotely dangerous, etc) that Guy Fawkes had the right idea nearly 400 years ago.
A penny for the old guy,
-b.
If they'd not be mandated and there was no legal consequence for turning the transponder off or making it unable to communicate, I'd simply turn mine off. It's doable with things like On*Star from GM, and I'd rather take the infinitisimal risk of running off the road, hitting a tree and bleeding to death before an ambulance comes than be tracked all the time. As long as it's not mandated by law and there's no consequence other than a decrease in personal safety for turning it off, it doesn't raise my ire too much.
-b.
Agreed about the first part. I was talking about pollution at ground level (aka smog) from burning fossil fuels (or anything, really). NOx, hydrocarbons, and chemical reactions that produce low-level ozone (which hurts lungs but doesn't rebuild the ozone layer).
Personally, I pay 30% more for my electricity to have it come from wind/solar/hydro. I do not feel that everyone should be forced to do that, but that we should create a situation that would make folks want to do that.
There's the also the nuclear energy option. Also, currently wind, solar, and nuclear are expensive because the plants are unique and not really standardized. No economies of scale there. If we come up with more standardized plant designs, costs will go down. Also, it's relatively easy to use 30% less energy, believe it or not. If you're in the country, hang your wash out to dry instead of using a heated dryer. Replace lights with compact fluorescents. Heat your house to 65-68F in winter, cool to 75-78F in summer and dress appropriately for the season.
I think it's foolish to believe that people in general, and Americans in particular, will give up their cars.
Who says that they'd have to? Most trips are under 50 miles. So you could have hybrids that run on electricity 95% of the time from batteries and use either a fossil-fuel powered engine and generator or fuel cells to recharge the battery pack the other 5% of the time when you're going on long trips. The auxiliary power source could even be removable to make for more trunk space when it's not being used.
The precautionary principle that you suggest with your idea a, I do not support. It's not that I think that Global Warming won't prove to be a problem. I think for some humans/parts of the world, it will be. For others, it will be a boon. Siberia will likely warm turning it into another breadbasket for the world.
Problem is that some of the more equatorial areas might become so hot as to be uninhabitable, at least without a considerable outlay in energy for cooling. Which would cause more CO2 release, at least with current technology... We'd also experience a net loss in usable land area on Earth - not good with a growing population. In fact, how'd you like it if our (yes, me too :) beloved Manhattan island would be submerged or at least have to be protected by levees which could breach (or be blown up) at any time.
In summary, my point is that I support alternative fuels as the solution, and am afraid of the idea of limiting energy usage. The latter I think is a terrible waste of money.
But I never said anything about limiting energy usage. I was discussion taxing gasoline so as to limit *gasoline* usage gradually over a period of decades. Gradually so as to allow alternative technologies to be introduced to replace gasoline.
-b.
Just please don't institute the *fucking obnoxious* system of congestion charging that Red Kenny Livingstone saw fit to introduce in London. Using automated cameras to recognize and record license plates has major privacy implications. And there's already a working system of congestion charging for vehicles entering Manhattan in place - it's called tolls on the bridges and tunnels. Fortunately, Manhattan is an island. If you really wanted to, you could raise and lower the tolls depending on the time of day/week.
I wouldn't even be opposed to all-electronic toll collection provided that you could buy pre-paid RFID cards payable by cash to stick on your windshield. After all, cash toll plazas could have auto license plate recognition cameras as well, so the privacy implications provided that cash can be paid are pretty small.
London is one of the places in the world with the least amount of privacy for its citizens (subjects?). Let's not emulate all of the misguided "reforms" that Livingstone chooses to implement. There is, after all, a reason why the USA seceded from England 230 years ago.
-b.