Or, possibly, treat the students like students. You know, intelligent inquisitive drunks that want to explore new things, test boundaries, flirt with the law and read somethingawful.com
I really struggle to see why any university student network should be censored. Sure, firewall and lock down the staff network, where student data is held. Provide strong security on shared servers. But locking down all 'net access to filtered HTTP? That's a surefire way to damage innovation and discourage learning.
I went to a university that had no firewalls - you could telnet to the main servers from external servers, and we used that capability to build and maintain internet services. Many people at my uni went on to build companies in the dotcom boom, take on programming jobs, otherwise put their acquired skills and knowledge to use. I would heavily discourage anybody from attending a university that didn't want the same for its students.
How is reviewing the content more time consuming than creating the content?
"48 hours of video are uploaded every minute, resulting in nearly 8 years of content uploaded every day" - Youtube
Maybe you can afford to hire enough people to watch two days of video every minute, but most people can't. Automated checking is possible and reasonable.
It's reasonable because people can highlight false positives and regain control of their own content.
The failure here isn't the automated checking, it's the fraudulent claim (allegedly) made manually in response to the notice of a false positive.
That bit shouldn't be automated, and should lead to compensation.
So you do indeed want to disenfranchise anybody not currently living in Scotland. Which includes many Scots in England, while many English people living in Scotland will be able to vote.
Democracy? Alex Salmond hasn't fucking heard of it. Economist of long standing and corrupt politician, you're welcome to him. Shit, he hasn't even worked out that he can't run a country that isn't in control of its own currency yet.
Even your fucking slogan of 'Free Scotland' is inherently ignorant. Try living in the 21st century, it's great here. Scotland is free, it's part of a successful nation, achieving far more than it ever did alone (or in its alliances with France).
As I said, I'll vote for Scottish independence. I'll claim dual nationality, as I'll qualify for it on multiple counts. I'll choose to live in whichever country suits me best. I just wont pretend that Scottish nationalists are acting in the interests of their country, because they clearly aren't.
Has it occurred to you that I just hate the entrenched view of 'us' versus 'them'?
Scots hate Britishness being imposed on them? Sorry but no fucking sympathy - they are fucking British. Maybe if they spent less time hating the English and more time contributing then they'd do better.
I hate localism within England and Wales too. And don't go telling me I'm not Scottish, because I'm not fucking English either. I'm definitely not Welsh and I don't even want to be Irish.
Still, feel free to be ignorant, isolated, bigoted and small-minded. Seems to fit well with the Scottish Nationalist cadre, but please, don't pretend you represent the kind, generous, friendly and engaging majority living in Scotland.
Well done, you missed the fucking point completely. Every point.
Frankly if cunts like you plan to run Scotland, the country's doomed. But the inability to articulate an economic future for the country's already demonstrated that.
Carry on being vitriolic and stupid. Just don't drag down the rest of us with you, please.
Only if there's no fucking democracy. I live in England, will I get to vote? I'm as Scottish as most people in Scotland, and I'm British not English. An independent Scotland will impact me, I think it's only fair that I get to vote on it.
We also can go to university and not have to pay fees we have no toll bridges any more, they are all free too they are actually building more social housing than labour and also not doing it on the disaster that is PFI
Sure. England and Wales would have those things too if the Scottish MPs hadn't voted against it.
Trust me, I'd actually vote for an independent Scotland so that the fucking Scots can't keep voting for anti-English policies. Then I'll claim dual citizenship because - get this - I'm fucking British, not English, not Scottish, not Irish, not Welsh. I have an equal right to live, work and fuck anywhere in the United Kingdom and I will retain that right.
we now have signs up everywhere in our own language Scots Gaelic, and a resurgence of interest in it promoted by the Scots govt
Meanwhile, the rest of the world speaks a common language and looks on you with contempt.
And they have done much besides all the while labour, the liberals and the fucking tories fill their pockets from public funds in expenses
how do you know that he didn't? condoms are not 100% effective.
Men acknowledge that they're responsible for the birth of the child too, and do what's necessary to help support it. Only boys fight against paying child support for children they know are theirs.
Men have no choice about whether the child is born. I will never tell a woman to have an abortion. I will tell her that either I raise the kid in my own home, or I pay nothing towards it.
Her choice, but one that doesn't include exploitation of my labour for her own benefit.
So set his facebook account to 'private' so nobody can see his wall for 30 days - except maybe a court apointed assessor that's checking he's doing it - then remove the message again.
Film classification is acceptable in the USA. Video game classification is not.
This feels utterly confusing. Either children can be exposed to all forms of speech, or they can't.
Where's the big issue in age restricting games? Really, seriously? Or do you support the right of people to create interactive hard core porn and market it to 13yo boys?
Depends how much of that $10k includes support. Hell, software in the $100k+ licence bracket tends to be pretty much uninstallable and unusable without paying $4k/day for days/weeks/months of 'consultancy' for someone to come and set it up for you. 100 copies at $200 each isn't quite going to cover that.
(and yeah, I've had to provide support for video management software at a major national broadcaster before, and I was damn cheap at a mere £800/day)
Other than the price of the damn thing, I agree completely. Oracle licence their database under excellent terms, unless you're a hobbyist looking to use it in production. But then you're not in their target market and they'd offer you MySQL these days as the alternative.
But the price. C'mon Oracle, charge a little less and just don't buy (and ruin) so many otherwise great companies.
Crikey, you're doing it wrong. I have to swerve the avoid cock pheasants just driving down the roads near my house, let alone if I go out into woodland.
Sadly shooting them with my bow's illegal in this country, or I would bag myself a nice Sunday dinner.
Actually this is a correct approach. Website has been deemed to be breaking the law, appropriate legal sanction is applied.
The fact the law's utterly fucked up in this instance is the issue, not that people have actually used the courts to prevent what is, at the end of the day, activity illegal in the UK.
Trust me, I'd far rather have this level of openness about the process than have SOCA randomly shutting down a website because the RIAA bribed them.
...and yet, the previous Government wanted a central database, the security services keep demanding this data and the current Government wouldn't know what a human right was if they sat in Liverpool Crown Court listening to the current trial of alleged child molesters.
This would represent an excessive intrusion, it does hark back to the information gathering activities of the Stasi and I don't trust this or future Governments with this level of information. They've proven - repeatedly - unable to use it proportionately and appropriately.
Plausible, but likely to involve a lot of internal recharge of cost that would have been incurred anyway. You could argue opportunity cost, but to an extent these costs will be a standard business overhead for Facebook. It's just that for once they can allocate them to an individual.
The costs are however indicative of the scale of the impact, the guy isn't being asked to pay $200k in damages. That would've been pretty excessive.
Why, yes, I think it might be Mr. Synthesizer Patel. Not one of the half million other people called Patel in the UK at all. How foolish of me to ever think otherwise.
Victimless? Facebook the company is a victim. The people that would've received the $200k spent resolving this are victims. Facebook users that suffer a leak of their data as a result of this are frankly deserving of anything they get for giving Facebook their data in the first place, but that's kind of off-topic.
Maybe IDS would observe and report the intrusion, but on the whole, Rich0 was spot on.
Shit, I hadn't even considered the cost of an end-to-end regression test. Hopefully Facebook's a little more efficient on those than certain other companies I could name..
He wasn't a white-hat hacker though. He invasively changed their systems and acquired sensitive data, storing it externally.
Doing so under the banner of a small company is irrelevant; he broke the law, he did something wrong and he deserves every bit as much ire as Facebook would if they broke the law.
No data was lost/deleted, there was no material/financial loss, so what the heck?
How do you know no data was lost/deleted?
Given that he deleted log files, data clearly was lost/deleted. Investigating that loss, ascertaining its extent and the sensitivity of the data involved, rebuilding the systems are all costs that are forced on the company as a direct result of his actions. $200k is a team of 3 consultants for a month, even without the internal cost implications.
It seems almost like a mind crime: he knows what he's not supposed to know, and nothing else, and he's not blackmailing anyone over it, nor is he intending to.
No, it seems almost like a clear breach of a pretty sensible law that states that unauthorised access to someone else's computer is illegal. I agree with that law. I disagree with how it's applied at times (e.g. accessing open wifi points is not, to me, unauthorised) but the law is a good one and is very applicable here.
8 months may be excessive, but being found guilty is not. He shouldn't have done it, it's obvious he shouldn't have done it and by requesting payment from Facebook to tell them how he broke the law hacking them he's lucky he didn't get done for fraud, AML or other financial crimes.
Everywhere where I've seen a networked printer it has always had fully public IP address and accessible from the Internet. The admins just don't bother to do anything about it.
A grand total of zero computers in my company have a public IP address or are accessible from the Internet. What makes you think any printers would be?
(Note: We have around 8000 printers; I kind of lost count of the computers)
Slashdot Mirror
Or, possibly, treat the students like students. You know, intelligent inquisitive drunks that want to explore new things, test boundaries, flirt with the law and read somethingawful.com
I really struggle to see why any university student network should be censored. Sure, firewall and lock down the staff network, where student data is held. Provide strong security on shared servers. But locking down all 'net access to filtered HTTP? That's a surefire way to damage innovation and discourage learning.
I went to a university that had no firewalls - you could telnet to the main servers from external servers, and we used that capability to build and maintain internet services. Many people at my uni went on to build companies in the dotcom boom, take on programming jobs, otherwise put their acquired skills and knowledge to use. I would heavily discourage anybody from attending a university that didn't want the same for its students.
How is reviewing the content more time consuming than creating the content?
"48 hours of video are uploaded every minute, resulting in nearly 8 years of content uploaded every day" - Youtube
Maybe you can afford to hire enough people to watch two days of video every minute, but most people can't. Automated checking is possible and reasonable.
It's reasonable because people can highlight false positives and regain control of their own content.
The failure here isn't the automated checking, it's the fraudulent claim (allegedly) made manually in response to the notice of a false positive.
That bit shouldn't be automated, and should lead to compensation.
So you do indeed want to disenfranchise anybody not currently living in Scotland. Which includes many Scots in England, while many English people living in Scotland will be able to vote.
Democracy? Alex Salmond hasn't fucking heard of it. Economist of long standing and corrupt politician, you're welcome to him. Shit, he hasn't even worked out that he can't run a country that isn't in control of its own currency yet.
Even your fucking slogan of 'Free Scotland' is inherently ignorant. Try living in the 21st century, it's great here. Scotland is free, it's part of a successful nation, achieving far more than it ever did alone (or in its alliances with France).
As I said, I'll vote for Scottish independence. I'll claim dual nationality, as I'll qualify for it on multiple counts. I'll choose to live in whichever country suits me best. I just wont pretend that Scottish nationalists are acting in the interests of their country, because they clearly aren't.
Has it occurred to you that I just hate the entrenched view of 'us' versus 'them'?
Scots hate Britishness being imposed on them? Sorry but no fucking sympathy - they are fucking British. Maybe if they spent less time hating the English and more time contributing then they'd do better.
I hate localism within England and Wales too. And don't go telling me I'm not Scottish, because I'm not fucking English either. I'm definitely not Welsh and I don't even want to be Irish.
Still, feel free to be ignorant, isolated, bigoted and small-minded. Seems to fit well with the Scottish Nationalist cadre, but please, don't pretend you represent the kind, generous, friendly and engaging majority living in Scotland.
Well done, you missed the fucking point completely. Every point.
Frankly if cunts like you plan to run Scotland, the country's doomed. But the inability to articulate an economic future for the country's already demonstrated that.
Carry on being vitriolic and stupid. Just don't drag down the rest of us with you, please.
as for you being as Scottish as anyone here... YOU ARE HAVING A LAUGH!!!..
Oh? You now know my heritage? You know how far removed from the throne of Scotland I am? You've traced my own history back to Roman times?
No? I thought not. You're full of shit on every single fucking count.
Yeah, that chief constable was a perfect example of why the Police need to have very constrained powers controlled by the judiciary.
Scotland will vote for independence
Only if there's no fucking democracy. I live in England, will I get to vote? I'm as Scottish as most people in Scotland, and I'm British not English. An independent Scotland will impact me, I think it's only fair that I get to vote on it.
We also can go to university and not have to pay fees
we have no toll bridges any more, they are all free too
they are actually building more social housing than labour and also not doing it on the disaster that is PFI
Sure. England and Wales would have those things too if the Scottish MPs hadn't voted against it.
Trust me, I'd actually vote for an independent Scotland so that the fucking Scots can't keep voting for anti-English policies. Then I'll claim dual citizenship because - get this - I'm fucking British, not English, not Scottish, not Irish, not Welsh. I have an equal right to live, work and fuck anywhere in the United Kingdom and I will retain that right.
we now have signs up everywhere in our own language Scots Gaelic, and a resurgence of interest in it promoted by the Scots govt
Meanwhile, the rest of the world speaks a common language and looks on you with contempt.
And they have done much besides all the while labour, the liberals and the fucking tories fill their pockets from public funds in expenses
Unlike, say, the leader of the SNP:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5299733/Alex-Salmond-claimed-800-for-food-on-MPs-expenses-during-recess.html
I personally think that's just fucking corrupt, but hey, maybe you want him running your country.
He should have used a condom
how do you know that he didn't? condoms are not 100% effective.
Men acknowledge that they're responsible for the birth of the child too, and do what's necessary to help support it. Only boys fight against paying child support for children they know are theirs.
Men have no choice about whether the child is born. I will never tell a woman to have an abortion. I will tell her that either I raise the kid in my own home, or I pay nothing towards it.
Her choice, but one that doesn't include exploitation of my labour for her own benefit.
So set his facebook account to 'private' so nobody can see his wall for 30 days - except maybe a court apointed assessor that's checking he's doing it - then remove the message again.
Ok, so help me out here.
Film classification is acceptable in the USA.
Video game classification is not.
This feels utterly confusing. Either children can be exposed to all forms of speech, or they can't.
Where's the big issue in age restricting games? Really, seriously? Or do you support the right of people to create interactive hard core porn and market it to 13yo boys?
It's quite possible that the different hunting laws between our countries completely accounts for the respective prevalence of the male birds :)
Depends how much of that $10k includes support. Hell, software in the $100k+ licence bracket tends to be pretty much uninstallable and unusable without paying $4k/day for days/weeks/months of 'consultancy' for someone to come and set it up for you. 100 copies at $200 each isn't quite going to cover that.
(and yeah, I've had to provide support for video management software at a major national broadcaster before, and I was damn cheap at a mere £800/day)
Other than the price of the damn thing, I agree completely. Oracle licence their database under excellent terms, unless you're a hobbyist looking to use it in production. But then you're not in their target market and they'd offer you MySQL these days as the alternative.
But the price. C'mon Oracle, charge a little less and just don't buy (and ruin) so many otherwise great companies.
Crikey, you're doing it wrong. I have to swerve the avoid cock pheasants just driving down the roads near my house, let alone if I go out into woodland.
Sadly shooting them with my bow's illegal in this country, or I would bag myself a nice Sunday dinner.
Actually this is a correct approach. Website has been deemed to be breaking the law, appropriate legal sanction is applied.
The fact the law's utterly fucked up in this instance is the issue, not that people have actually used the courts to prevent what is, at the end of the day, activity illegal in the UK.
Trust me, I'd far rather have this level of openness about the process than have SOCA randomly shutting down a website because the RIAA bribed them.
This would represent an excessive intrusion, it does hark back to the information gathering activities of the Stasi and I don't trust this or future Governments with this level of information. They've proven - repeatedly - unable to use it proportionately and appropriately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Misuse_Act_1990
Note the links at the bottom to the precise wording of the relevant legislation.
200K sounds plausible
Plausible, but likely to involve a lot of internal recharge of cost that would have been incurred anyway. You could argue opportunity cost, but to an extent these costs will be a standard business overhead for Facebook. It's just that for once they can allocate them to an individual.
The costs are however indicative of the scale of the impact, the guy isn't being asked to pay $200k in damages. That would've been pretty excessive.
Why, yes, I think it might be Mr. Synthesizer Patel. Not one of the half million other people called Patel in the UK at all. How foolish of me to ever think otherwise.
Victimless? Facebook the company is a victim. The people that would've received the $200k spent resolving this are victims. Facebook users that suffer a leak of their data as a result of this are frankly deserving of anything they get for giving Facebook their data in the first place, but that's kind of off-topic.
Maybe IDS would observe and report the intrusion, but on the whole, Rich0 was spot on.
Shit, I hadn't even considered the cost of an end-to-end regression test. Hopefully Facebook's a little more efficient on those than certain other companies I could name..
He wasn't a white-hat hacker though. He invasively changed their systems and acquired sensitive data, storing it externally.
Doing so under the banner of a small company is irrelevant; he broke the law, he did something wrong and he deserves every bit as much ire as Facebook would if they broke the law.
No data was lost/deleted, there was no material/financial loss, so what the heck?
How do you know no data was lost/deleted?
Given that he deleted log files, data clearly was lost/deleted. Investigating that loss, ascertaining its extent and the sensitivity of the data involved, rebuilding the systems are all costs that are forced on the company as a direct result of his actions. $200k is a team of 3 consultants for a month, even without the internal cost implications.
It seems almost like a mind crime: he knows what he's not supposed to know, and nothing else, and he's not blackmailing anyone over it, nor is he intending to.
No, it seems almost like a clear breach of a pretty sensible law that states that unauthorised access to someone else's computer is illegal. I agree with that law. I disagree with how it's applied at times (e.g. accessing open wifi points is not, to me, unauthorised) but the law is a good one and is very applicable here.
8 months may be excessive, but being found guilty is not. He shouldn't have done it, it's obvious he shouldn't have done it and by requesting payment from Facebook to tell them how he broke the law hacking them he's lucky he didn't get done for fraud, AML or other financial crimes.
Everywhere where I've seen a networked printer it has always had fully public IP address and accessible from the Internet. The admins just don't bother to do anything about it.
A grand total of zero computers in my company have a public IP address or are accessible from the Internet. What makes you think any printers would be?
(Note: We have around 8000 printers; I kind of lost count of the computers)