The problem isn't specified well enough to allow any helpful answer other than "define the problem better, and you may answer it yourself."
We don't know where the "home village" is. "Village" doesn't sound like the United States, outside the east coast. It could be in Haiti or Cote d'Ivoire (eachhaving a GDP per capita, even adjusted upward on a PPP basis, of only around $1,500 a year, and in actual non-adjusted figures far less) rather than a US $42,000. In places like the former, $1000 is impossibly huge; in places like the other, it's mere pocket change at a private Manhattan day school.
There's no indication what, _exactly_, is meant by "educational software." I am skeptical of the very term. It can mean anything from "learn to type" programs to flashcard programs, or maybe Carmen SanDiego or The Oregon Trail. Is Sokoban "educational software"? There's no indication whether any such software is actually being used _now_ on the Windows machines, let alone what it (if anything) might be: the actual text mentions only a concern about "availability" of such a category of software on Linux, no specifics about what exactly anyone thinks is better learned via a program than from a teacher in person or better learned at a keyboard and screen than with a pencil or book.
The question does not give any explicit reason for labeling it "abhorrent" that the existing 14 PCs are Win 95/8/XPHome. Is it abhorrent because it's a sign that the school lacks money while a local police chief has a Mercedes squad car? Or for some other reason? Maybe there's a reason for using such emotional language. But with none given explicitly, the label does nothing to help inform an answer. Would it be "abhorrent" that I still have a working Win95/P1/32MBRAM notebook along with my Suse/P4/512MBRAM one and my wife's YDL/iBook366/320MBRAM one?
The question doesn't say anything consistent about the PC hardware. It hints obliquely that only some "capable" PCs, not all the PCs, could be upgraded enough to run XP Pro; but it refers to shifting "all" of them to Linux.
So we don't know the location, the economy, a budget perspective, the hardware specs, what any felt software needs are, what current software is being used to teach what specific subjects or skills, or even what exactly prompts the "abhorrent" comment. There's no indication anyone else at the school finds anything abhorrent, or has asked the questioner to help. There's no indication the kids are failing to learn any particular subject or skill. There's not even any indication what the questioner's connection to the school is; only a statement that he's not physically in the "home village" often enough to help out much. Certainly he hasn't helped provide enough facts to allow meaningful advice.
existence of some type of policy -- regardless of what that policy actually is -- is now enough for companies to eschew any liability for leaking consumers' data. That's a ridiculous statement.
Indeed. The SecurityFocus article is very chicken-littlish. One almost wonders whether they read the actual decision, or only heard about it.
Reading the actual decision, one sees that the judge's decision didn't say anything remotely like what the article claims. It was plaintiff, not the judge, who chose to argue that Brazos violated its own policy.
Guin argues that Brazos failed to comply with the self-imposed
[duty] in Brazos's privacy policy -- that Brazos will "restrict access to nonpublic personal information to authorized persons who need to know."
If that's the theory plaintiff wants to ride, fine. But it turned out that the guy with the laptop was authorized and needed to know. That just means that plaintiff pursued a theory on which the facts "got in the way"; the judge has no obligation to go thinking up better theories for a plaintiff than the plaintiff's own lawyers think up. Maybe Brazos should have had a stricter policy; but that's not what plaintiff argued. Plaintiff argued only that Brazos violated the policy that it already had; plaintiff didn't argue that Brazos should have changed the policy to restrict access to people who are (a) authorized, (b) need to know, and either (c1) encrypt or (c2) use it only on premises or via ssh. Plaintiff chose what horse to ride. If the facts made his chosen horse stumble, the judge isn't obligated to try to find him a better mount.
"[T]aking reasonable precautions means it simply doesn't get stolen, ever. Anything less is negligence."
No. Using a "doesn't get stolen, ever" standard means using a strict liability standard, not a negligence standard. "Doesn't get stolen, ever" requires taking not just "reasonable" precautions, but ones above and beyond the call, cost-is-no-object, "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you" precautions.
"The only secure computer is one that's unplugged, locked in a safe, and buried 20 feet under the ground in a secret location... and I'm
not even too sure about that one" -- Dennis Huges, FBI.
Encryption? Sure, but better shoot the only employee who ever knew the key, because you can't guarantee that he won't decide to profit from his knowledge.
Hmmm. Now we've just shot the only employee who knew the key. How do we access this guy's records? Oh, we can't. But we've guaranteed that the data can't be stolen by him, either.
The only way to guarantee against all risks of data misuse and all risks of data disclosure, is not to have any data accessible to anyone at all -- because there's no person in the world as to whom there's a non-zero risk that they might be dishonest.
Reasonable care means taking reasonable precautions to check on people's honesty. The mere fact that someone who was trusted ends up turning crook doesn't mean one wasn't reasonable in the first place. Likewise, the mere fact that an accident happens that -- with hindsight -- could have been prevented doesn't mean that someone didn't act with sufficient foresight.
One needn't "follow Pakistani-Indian relations _closely_" to know that the Kashmir border is disputed very hotly.
Indeed, I'd say that anyone who doesn't know that India and Pakistan dispute that border shouldn't be allowed to vote. That particular dispute is the most likely occasion for the next use of nuclear weapons, for one. For another, we'd like to have Pakistan's help fighting terror, but many Pakistanis are likely to be sympathetic to those who supported the Taliban. For a third, some Pakistani scientists and officials have been a suspected source of nuclear weapons know-how for other would-be members of the nuclear club. Just a couple of little "details" that it might help to know when deciding whom to vote for.
Of course, the courts have ruled a few times that we couldn't have literacy tests, but times (and courts and more particularly judges) change . . .
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isn't specified well enough to allow any helpful answer other than "define the problem better, and you may answer it yourself."
We don't know where the "home village" is. "Village" doesn't sound like the United States, outside the east coast. It could be in Haiti or Cote d'Ivoire (eachhaving a GDP per capita, even adjusted upward on a PPP basis, of only around $1,500 a year, and in actual non-adjusted figures far less) rather than a US $42,000. In places like the former, $1000 is impossibly huge; in places like the other, it's mere pocket change at a private Manhattan day school.
There's no indication what, _exactly_, is meant by "educational software." I am skeptical of the very term. It can mean anything from "learn to type" programs to flashcard programs, or maybe Carmen SanDiego or The Oregon Trail. Is Sokoban "educational software"? There's no indication whether any such software is actually being used _now_ on the Windows machines, let alone what it (if anything) might be: the actual text mentions only a concern about "availability" of such a category of software on Linux, no specifics about what exactly anyone thinks is better learned via a program than from a teacher in person or better learned at a keyboard and screen than with a pencil or book.
The question does not give any explicit reason for labeling it "abhorrent" that the existing 14 PCs are Win 95/8/XPHome. Is it abhorrent because it's a sign that the school lacks money while a local police chief has a Mercedes squad car? Or for some other reason? Maybe there's a reason for using such emotional language. But with none given explicitly, the label does nothing to help inform an answer. Would it be "abhorrent" that I still have a working Win95/P1/32MBRAM notebook along with my Suse/P4/512MBRAM one and my wife's YDL/iBook366/320MBRAM one?
The question doesn't say anything consistent about the PC hardware. It hints obliquely that only some "capable" PCs, not all the PCs, could be upgraded enough to run XP Pro; but it refers to shifting "all" of them to Linux.
So we don't know the location, the economy, a budget perspective, the hardware specs, what any felt software needs are, what current software is being used to teach what specific subjects or skills, or even what exactly prompts the "abhorrent" comment. There's no indication anyone else at the school finds anything abhorrent, or has asked the questioner to help. There's no indication the kids are failing to learn any particular subject or skill. There's not even any indication what the questioner's connection to the school is; only a statement that he's not physically in the "home village" often enough to help out much. Certainly he hasn't helped provide enough facts to allow meaningful advice.
Indeed. The SecurityFocus article is very chicken-littlish. One almost wonders whether they read the actual decision, or only heard about it.
Reading the actual decision, one sees that the judge's decision didn't say anything remotely like what the article claims. It was plaintiff, not the judge, who chose to argue that Brazos violated its own policy.
If that's the theory plaintiff wants to ride, fine. But it turned out that the guy with the laptop was authorized and needed to know. That just means that plaintiff pursued a theory on which the facts "got in the way"; the judge has no obligation to go thinking up better theories for a plaintiff than the plaintiff's own lawyers think up. Maybe Brazos should have had a stricter policy; but that's not what plaintiff argued. Plaintiff argued only that Brazos violated the policy that it already had; plaintiff didn't argue that Brazos should have changed the policy to restrict access to people who are (a) authorized, (b) need to know, and either (c1) encrypt or (c2) use it only on premises or via ssh. Plaintiff chose what horse to ride. If the facts made his chosen horse stumble, the judge isn't obligated to try to find him a better mount."[T]aking reasonable precautions means it simply doesn't get stolen, ever. Anything less is negligence."
No. Using a "doesn't get stolen, ever" standard means using a strict liability standard, not a negligence standard. "Doesn't get stolen, ever" requires taking not just "reasonable" precautions, but ones above and beyond the call, cost-is-no-object, "I could tell you but I'd have to kill you" precautions.
Encryption? Sure, but better shoot the only employee who ever knew the key, because you can't guarantee that he won't decide to profit from his knowledge.
The only way to guarantee against all risks of data misuse and all risks of data disclosure, is not to have any data accessible to anyone at all -- because there's no person in the world as to whom there's a non-zero risk that they might be dishonest.
Reasonable care means taking reasonable precautions to check on people's honesty. The mere fact that someone who was trusted ends up turning crook doesn't mean one wasn't reasonable in the first place. Likewise, the mere fact that an accident happens that -- with hindsight -- could have been prevented doesn't mean that someone didn't act with sufficient foresight.
One needn't "follow Pakistani-Indian relations _closely_" to know that the Kashmir border is disputed very hotly. Indeed, I'd say that anyone who doesn't know that India and Pakistan dispute that border shouldn't be allowed to vote. That particular dispute is the most likely occasion for the next use of nuclear weapons, for one. For another, we'd like to have Pakistan's help fighting terror, but many Pakistanis are likely to be sympathetic to those who supported the Taliban. For a third, some Pakistani scientists and officials have been a suspected source of nuclear weapons know-how for other would-be members of the nuclear club. Just a couple of little "details" that it might help to know when deciding whom to vote for. Of course, the courts have ruled a few times that we couldn't have literacy tests, but times (and courts and more particularly judges) change . . .