Yeah, those are bad as well, but there is no generally accepted method of dealing with those.
You can't just search everyone's belongings as they enter the workplace... and simply having the materials wouldn't imply that they were going to be used at the workplace... You can't reasonably put a camera in everyone office monitoring for these sorts of activity either... It's just not a tractable problem.
However, a webpage has been requested... it is being acted upon... and it is something that can be monitored.
I've seen employment cases lost on much weaker issues...
> Companies today cannot afford to not be producing at 100% efficiency
Do we have any idea the size of his company? The "type" of employees there? Maybe he's in a small majority of reasonably users, and 90% of the rest will click on anything that pops up in front of them... Running a business requires making alot of tradeoffs, and we just don't know enough about his situation to make judgements about the correctness of their tradeoffs.
We test patches pretty well before we approve them for installation. If a patch kills your machine once we've approved it, more than likely, you were doing something on your machine that you shouldn't have been doing.
There are exceptions to this of course, and the folks that are those exceptions know about the risks, and know who to contact about mitigations.
I'll probably be modded redundant for this (because I'm oh such a misunderstood genius adrift in the sea of fascism that is the slashdot moderation system) but is it just me or is anyone else sick of reading posts starting "I'll probably be modded troll for this"
Can you list some of those factors? Not that I disagree you, I'm just thrown by the "thousands" bit.
He committed a crime (not a civil offense), and was convicted... I guess he could be fined or something in theory, but aren't the laws for trespass usually pretty weighted towards jail time?
Normal RAID 5 has 1 disk for parity... DP-RAID, has 2 disks..., why not have DP-N? We have file systems with snapshot capabilities... take a snap, calculate the # of disks, and start shoving data.
It would take double the disks, but you could lose up to half of them and still have your data.
She was suing me and my employer for over twice that amount. (No, the employer had nothing to do with it... she was just using them as an extortion method)
She did offer to settle initially for $100,000... but remember, I had actually done nothing. (And I didn't think the legal fees were going to mount tht high at that point... but you add delays, rounds of discovery, fights over discovery, motions for contempt for no reason, adjoining other mostly unrelated cases, adding actions, etc...)
If I didn't fight it, a judgement gets ordered. She was alleging some pretty eggregious stuff too... if I didn't defend it, I am basically accepting her facts as stated, and given what she stated, you could argue that huge sum was reasonable. On top of that, it's all public record, and I wouldn't have been able to pass any nontrivial background check for anything, could never teach, could never get a government job, etc...
The judge was giving her every chance to prove her case, I'm assuming so nothing could get appealed, and it was fairly clear he didn't buy the case in general... I just couldn't last long enough to get to that point.
As a point of trivia... after a year of this, she settled for about $2,000
The lesson as nearest I can tell: Never become friends with anyone who has ever been (or is) married.
> the RIAA, or any private organisation or individual for that matter, does not and should not wield any police power
Well, they don't... so that wraps that up nicely =-)
They are exercising CIVIL powers that are available to any civil entity.
I don't want the police in the middle of this... They are so busy and afraid of getting sued as it is, they won't investigate hit&run accidents half the time. I couldn't get them to come to my house to get rid of my roommate's ex-wife when she was violating a CLETS restraining order, simply because she wasn't actively physically threatening anyone at the moment. (That woman is large enough she can actually cause physical harm without a weapon...) Never mind that if she did get violent the Sherriff's wouldn't be able to show in less than 10 minutes, assuming I was able to contact them at all after that... wonder why I'm pro 2nd ammendment? =-)
Do you really want to have your right to sue taken away because a single cop didn't think your case was worth developing for whatever organizational reason was relevant at the moment. Do you really want to tie up two government branches with each wrong?
> Just because someone makes available a file called 'Eminem - When I'm Gone.mp3' doesn't mean it's copyrighted material, indeed, it might not even be an audio file.
I would argue that if you are offering a file called 'Eminem - When I'm Gone.mp3', a reasonable person would expect that it would contain that song. Based on that they have enough reason to begin discovery.
Now, they have steps after this that need to be done... like, now that they know you, they can subpoena access to you comptuer, etc... but that's a different ball of wax.
It mostly sucks, but anyone can sue anyone for most anything and get into court. If it was truly frivolous, fees can be ordered to the losing party. BUT if you are offering a file with that name, there's a reasonable chance that you are offering what you appear to be advertising, so the case would most likely not be judged frivolous on just that.
because it's wide open to abuse by large and well-funded organisations in this sort of context, but that's a separate problem.
Not just the biggies... I'm out over $200,000 in legal fees fighting a psychotic single mother, who happens to be a reasonably intelligent paralegal. She knows enough to file everything on her own, and files enough that I have to have attorneys spend alot of time dealing with the filings.
And since she's a poor single mother (who lost custody of her kids in fact), the courts don't want to cause her to risk not having a clean safe place for her kids to visit. Nevermind that I'm on the edge of homelessness as a result...
I don't think the loser pays system is the way to go either... that puts too much risk on the little guy suing the bigger guys.
We just need the judges to be a bit more liberal in using their discretion to award attorney's fees to the losing side.
The ex parte orders are being used to figure out who exactly to sue... with out them there's no way anyone would be able to have any sort or recourse since ISP's tend not to share subscriber info without a court order.
They could require that each ISP be formally sued for the info, in which case they have to come in to court... RIAA wouldn't have much of a problem with this, but ISPs would lose out HUGE time.
The ISPs still have some recourse after the order is entered as well, and as we see here, even the person getting sued can take some action as well as soon as they are identified. (Some ISPs will notify you before they answer, and give you a chance to try to quash before they answer)
Alot of the rest of their tactics are crap, but this is a legitimate use of ex parte, and I dread what the alternative would be.
I was making light fun of the fact hat he said he has only once choice of provider in his area for Internet access. He didn't say he had only one source of "Broadband" access, or cable access, etc... just access in general.
'twas a little poke to say, there are probably choices... just maybe not one's prefers. (Can't divine any further since he state the specs of the jobs internet requirements)
Or for the more serious minded, trying to make the distinction between what you _need_ and what you _want_.
Laptop and home users also have the right to run an insecure PC.
When you sign on with most of these services, you agree to some sort Terms of Service, which usually include "I will not hack other people". It seems that they could just fall back on having snort hanging around, and if it recognizes a significant amount of trips from a single machine, that it throttles the upload/blocks the port/etc. That would take care of most services.
The owner of the account should be contacted regarding this, and if they can't get in touch with them for some period of time, you block all traffic from them. (Which should get a call pretty quickly)
Now, the ISPs need to have a very simple page describing what they are blocking and how to not get blocked. ie, get patched, leave your firewall on, etc... you follow these you're good to go... you don't follow these, you put yourself at risk of violationg your TOS
I'm normally against these sorts of things, but if it can be kept transparent, I'm not sure I see a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, those are bad as well, but there is no generally accepted method of dealing with those.
You can't just search everyone's belongings as they enter the workplace... and simply having the materials wouldn't imply that they were going to be used at the workplace... You can't reasonably put a camera in everyone office monitoring for these sorts of activity either... It's just not a tractable problem.
However, a webpage has been requested... it is being acted upon... and it is something that can be monitored.
I've seen employment cases lost on much weaker issues...
> Companies today cannot afford to not be producing at 100% efficiency Do we have any idea the size of his company? The "type" of employees there? Maybe he's in a small majority of reasonably users, and 90% of the rest will click on anything that pops up in front of them... Running a business requires making alot of tradeoffs, and we just don't know enough about his situation to make judgements about the correctness of their tradeoffs.
We test patches pretty well before we approve them for installation. If a patch kills your machine once we've approved it, more than likely, you were doing something on your machine that you shouldn't have been doing. There are exceptions to this of course, and the folks that are those exceptions know about the risks, and know who to contact about mitigations.
>It is stupid because they could have exempted him from their Windows specific policy quite easily.
I'm willing to bet it wasn't a network admin that gave them the run around. It was a help desk flunky, probably of a "click and read" variety.
Had this guy actually gotten to a tech who'd been around the company for more than a few days, he's probably have been taken care of in some fashion.
I wonder about this (on a technicality)... do most people who use Mac OS X actually own Macs? Or are they using School/Work machines?
Is the ratio closer to 50/50?
I'll probably be modded redundant for this (because I'm oh such a misunderstood genius adrift in the sea of fascism that is the slashdot moderation system) but is it just me or is anyone else sick of reading posts starting "I'll probably be modded troll for this"
Interesting. My experience with this is through my brother... though, he does have a way of pushing people's buttons. Thank you for the info
Doh! I was looking at the wrong number. I need to get out and grab some food or something... brain... not... working
Can you list some of those factors? Not that I disagree you, I'm just thrown by the "thousands" bit.
He committed a crime (not a civil offense), and was convicted... I guess he could be fined or something in theory, but aren't the laws for trespass usually pretty weighted towards jail time?
Funny. His ID is lower than yours =-)
Not by much... but still
It won't play iTMS videos.
Apple doesn't currently let anyone play these videos, nor do they document that in their APIs.
I've got a bug open with them, but no action has been taken...
Maybe we need to start using RAID setups.
Normal RAID 5 has 1 disk for parity... DP-RAID, has 2 disks..., why not have DP-N? We have file systems with snapshot capabilities... take a snap, calculate the # of disks, and start shoving data.
It would take double the disks, but you could lose up to half of them and still have your data.
>But no one does it.
What about MS Bob?
<ducks>
> transfer MPEG2 video to the TiVo
Really? I've never seen an option for that that didn't involve major hacking.
Though, I'm very interested. How is it done?
She was suing me and my employer for over twice that amount. (No, the employer had nothing to do with it... she was just using them as an extortion method)
She did offer to settle initially for $100,000... but remember, I had actually done nothing. (And I didn't think the legal fees were going to mount tht high at that point... but you add delays, rounds of discovery, fights over discovery, motions for contempt for no reason, adjoining other mostly unrelated cases, adding actions, etc...)
If I didn't fight it, a judgement gets ordered. She was alleging some pretty eggregious stuff too... if I didn't defend it, I am basically accepting her facts as stated, and given what she stated, you could argue that huge sum was reasonable. On top of that, it's all public record, and I wouldn't have been able to pass any nontrivial background check for anything, could never teach, could never get a government job, etc...
The judge was giving her every chance to prove her case, I'm assuming so nothing could get appealed, and it was fairly clear he didn't buy the case in general... I just couldn't last long enough to get to that point.
As a point of trivia... after a year of this, she settled for about $2,000
The lesson as nearest I can tell: Never become friends with anyone who has ever been (or is) married.
> the RIAA, or any private organisation or individual for that matter, does not and should not wield any police power
Well, they don't... so that wraps that up nicely =-)
They are exercising CIVIL powers that are available to any civil entity.
I don't want the police in the middle of this... They are so busy and afraid of getting sued as it is, they won't investigate hit&run accidents half the time. I couldn't get them to come to my house to get rid of my roommate's ex-wife when she was violating a CLETS restraining order, simply because she wasn't actively physically threatening anyone at the moment. (That woman is large enough she can actually cause physical harm without a weapon...) Never mind that if she did get violent the Sherriff's wouldn't be able to show in less than 10 minutes, assuming I was able to contact them at all after that... wonder why I'm pro 2nd ammendment? =-)
Do you really want to have your right to sue taken away because a single cop didn't think your case was worth developing for whatever organizational reason was relevant at the moment.
Do you really want to tie up two government branches with each wrong?
> Just because someone makes available a file called 'Eminem - When I'm Gone.mp3' doesn't mean it's copyrighted material, indeed, it might not even be an audio file.
I would argue that if you are offering a file called 'Eminem - When I'm Gone.mp3', a reasonable person would expect that it would contain that song. Based on that they have enough reason to begin discovery.
Now, they have steps after this that need to be done... like, now that they know you, they can subpoena access to you comptuer, etc... but that's a different ball of wax.
It mostly sucks, but anyone can sue anyone for most anything and get into court. If it was truly frivolous, fees can be ordered to the losing party. BUT if you are offering a file with that name, there's a reasonable chance that you are offering what you appear to be advertising, so the case would most likely not be judged frivolous on just that.
I keep getting 0 bytes files... even from coral cache...
I really want to read what was filed for this
Not just the biggies... I'm out over $200,000 in legal fees fighting a psychotic single mother, who happens to be a reasonably intelligent paralegal. She knows enough to file everything on her own, and files enough that I have to have attorneys spend alot of time dealing with the filings.
And since she's a poor single mother (who lost custody of her kids in fact), the courts don't want to cause her to risk not having a clean safe place for her kids to visit. Nevermind that I'm on the edge of homelessness as a result...
I don't think the loser pays system is the way to go either... that puts too much risk on the little guy suing the bigger guys.
We just need the judges to be a bit more liberal in using their discretion to award attorney's fees to the losing side.
Absolutely agreed
I just wanted to head off the "ex parte is inherently evil" knee-jerk reactions that are popping up.
The ex parte orders are being used to figure out who exactly to sue... with out them there's no way anyone would be able to have any sort or recourse since ISP's tend not to share subscriber info without a court order. They could require that each ISP be formally sued for the info, in which case they have to come in to court... RIAA wouldn't have much of a problem with this, but ISPs would lose out HUGE time. The ISPs still have some recourse after the order is entered as well, and as we see here, even the person getting sued can take some action as well as soon as they are identified. (Some ISPs will notify you before they answer, and give you a chance to try to quash before they answer) Alot of the rest of their tactics are crap, but this is a legitimate use of ex parte, and I dread what the alternative would be.
What would that be? They don't have any products in that space yet...
I was making light fun of the fact hat he said he has only once choice of provider in his area for Internet access. He didn't say he had only one source of "Broadband" access, or cable access, etc... just access in general. 'twas a little poke to say, there are probably choices... just maybe not one's prefers. (Can't divine any further since he state the specs of the jobs internet requirements) Or for the more serious minded, trying to make the distinction between what you _need_ and what you _want_.
AOL has dialup numbers just about everywhere... so, you are an AOL user?
Laptop and home users also have the right to run an insecure PC.
When you sign on with most of these services, you agree to some sort Terms of Service, which usually include "I will not hack other people". It seems that they could just fall back on having snort hanging around, and if it recognizes a significant amount of trips from a single machine, that it throttles the upload/blocks the port/etc. That would take care of most services.
The owner of the account should be contacted regarding this, and if they can't get in touch with them for some period of time, you block all traffic from them. (Which should get a call pretty quickly)
Now, the ISPs need to have a very simple page describing what they are blocking and how to not get blocked. ie, get patched, leave your firewall on, etc... you follow these you're good to go... you don't follow these, you put yourself at risk of violationg your TOS
I'm normally against these sorts of things, but if it can be kept transparent, I'm not sure I see a problem.