Many individuals who'd achieved a relative degree of success in their field of expertise but had experienced a lack of luster with their careers became college instructors. By doing this you can capitalize on your knowledge and experience and use it to transition into another field.
In this case you are damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't. On one hand, if you do as directed you are not only committing an unlawful act but are compromising your own ethics. On the other, you are risking your livelihood or at the very least your vocational bliss by introducing friction within the workplace and risk being branded a "boat rocker". So what's a guy or gal to do?
If your ideals don't outweigh your desire to eat or your career ambitions I'd recommend a nice typewritten statement regarding situation and your disagreement with the actions taken. In this statement be cautious about making accusations (somewhat unavoidable but try to tone it down if possible) and attempt to keep the tone as neutral and matter-of fact as possible. Have HR or personnel add this statement to your file in the event this ever comes back to haunt you. There is no need to distribute this letter all over the office or to the various levels of management, just have it placed in your file (and possibly your immediate supervisor; though consider this carefully as it could cause more harm than good) as a defense against reprisal should the hammer ever fall and the company decides to offer you up as a scapegoat.
The objective here is not to accuse anyone of anything or to pass an ethical judgment. You are merely saying, "I performed this assignment under protest for such-and-such reasons". While unlikely, should the situation turn ugly you can declare absolution.
What does it say about corporate employment in this country when Google can slide down the slope and still remain more desirable than almost any other employer out there?
This doesn't sound like Google did an analysis of their employment practices so much as a "Consulting Firm" did an analysis and recommended a series of cost cutting measures, which begs the question, "Why is Google suddenly concerned about small matters like a paid lunch break when they weren't before?" Financial trouble?
Where are the chapters on "Managing Things You Don't Understand, with Authority" and "Second Guessing Those Who Understand It Better Than You"?
Over the past several years I've noticed a growth of IT Management out of decidedly non-technical disciplines such as sales, architecture (as in drafting), human resources, and a plethora of other "how do I delete my cache" disciplines. If I recall correctly, I've met one Manager who had a background in IT in the last two years. While I'll be the last to deny that it is possible to move laterally into a technical discipline, in almost every instance that I've witnessed, these faux IT Managers have sorely lacked in the necessary traits and understanding to adequately fulfill the responsibilities of their role. This commonly results in a department of bitter techs and engineers slaving to overcome the hurdles of an understaffed, under budgeted department while the management boob takes the pat on the back from upper.
I'm just not too sure how I feel about a book that has the potential to encourage yet more "non-techs" to move into a discipline they are ill equipped to comprehend, much less manage. It has nothing to do with the ability to "manage geeks", it's about the ability to manage the technology. Management plays the "geeks are hard to manage" card all to often to obfuscate their piss-poor grasp of the process of dealing with a technological infrastructure and they naturally assume that it's the "geek's" fault.
As an added caveat, this guide could also promote the principals du jour of IT Management, which have been developed from a managerial path-of-least resistance, pass-the-buck mindset, or watch-the-bottom-line paranoia (not to imply that budget consideration isn't a valid part of the job) rather than from actual methods designed to achieve security and efficiency in regular information systems operations.
On the flip side, if this book actually imparts the knowledge to enable individuals to develop their own management methods based on actual needs then it might be a good thing. And if all of the technical jargon and silly acronyms frighten the unqualified from other areas then all the better.
I had almost the exact same experience some time back. The remote was in a thermally sealed clamshell package so I used a set of shears to slice the package open only to discover that the hidden manual (with all the codes) had been sliced in half and fell, like confetti, to the floor.
I've also nearly destroyed a few items (as well as myself) during the attempt to extract them from the packaging.
White Wolf has had a pretty bad reputation for engaging in projects that either never see completion (several stillborn video game projects and a few physical marketing plans) or simply torpedoing a project all-to-hell so that it's complete fubar by the time it does see market, pocketing the cash and leaving the developer to twist in the wind (I'm sure some of you can think of a few). Such a track record doesn't bode well for a company with a demonstrated track record of failure, especially with digital media products.
Based on this, and this is only my opinion, I don't have much faith in WW's ability to carry out projects in an efficient and cost effective manner. More than likely they may sqeeze a few bucks from an RPG ruleset for EVE before they pocket the cash and bail, but I don't think they have the wherewithal to actually take effective advantage of a partnership with a (video/computer) game production house.
Help desk techs doing SQL DBA work? And supposedly this is a "recent trend?"
Actually, I've been seeing Helpdesk and Support positions with "heavy" or "strong" SQL knowledge required. Some even go so far as to specify DBA background.
There's a heck of a lot more to being a DBA than just installing SQL, setting up users and creating a DB, but it's not uncommon for people who don't understand that to think that they could do it.
I agree, which is why this strikes me as so absurd.
If this is the only ding you have on your credit report, employers can note the distinction between a medical related debt and something like consistently missing your mortgage payment.
This assumes that the employer will bother to make the distinction, which they will not do. The employer is likely screening potential hires on a blind index. Considering the ever decreasing performance standard being set by HR personnel world-wide, a potential candidate will be circular filed without a "human" analysis of circumstances in order to move on to the stack of 1138 other résumés on the desk.
Even in the absence of hundreds or thousands of other applicants the cop-out, "I'm sorry that's just company policy" will be played.
Just as a point of perspective, people in 1850 also did not need to undergo credit checks in order to secure gainful employment, either.
While I think the air conditioning thing is merely a token argument I'll add this: Try making a good impression at a job interview in the south when you have no air conditioning. Trust me, it's very difficult to look presentable in a suit when you are literally drenched in sweat and humidity. And while you might think that the interviewer would make allowances for the climate, draconian attitudes prevail.
I'd actually be inclined to argue that meat (or a viable and possibly costly vegetarian substitute) is more important to (healthy) survival than air conditioning. While I'm inclined to agree, strictly speaking, that air conditioning is not nessesary to survival it does fall into the category of things that one ought to have. Take for instance, nice clothing.
Nice clothing isn't nessesary to survival, by any means, but try interviewig for a job in rags and see how quickly you are eliminated from consideration.
I feel like my argument serves to further deviate from the issue of employer credit screenings, but I couldn't resist making the comment, nonetheless.
Definitely Kate Beckinsale as the brilliant nymphomaniac physicist who can't willingly keep her clothes on in... oh wait, that's my fantasy... Probably make one hell of a movie though.
Okay then, I guess it's gotta be Doctor Emmett Brown and his sidekick, Dr. Delorian.
I'll respond to this as nicely as my sensibilities permit.
I've seen your precious Nick Berg beheading video. The damn thing makes my blood run cold and my instinctive reaction is a strong desire to personally nuke the entire Middle East out of existence. Then, the critical thought processes overcome the base instincts of rage and fear (popular motivations these days). The individuals who killed Berg are driven by ignorance, hatred, and fear. It is also the ignorance, hatred and fear of some Americans that threatens our freedoms.
And it is also ignorant, and dishonorable, to use the video of the Berg beheading as propaganda to fuel a fascist fear campaign and you do your argument no favors by brandishing it as a rallying flag!
What happened to the republican ideal of "less government"? This trend of over legislation has become an epidemic.
Schools and libraries already have the means to block such sites if they choose to do so. Considering that schools should be considering implementing such practices proactively, or citizens demanding it directly of the schools, congress adds nothing by legislating at this level. Libraries, might be a different matter, however... but let's stick with schools for the moment.
This is similar to the problem we saw with the advent of the conservative family values campaign. We-do-not-need our government to legislate morality, that is the right and the responsibility of the populace at large. Parents and social groups should be reinforcing the behavior they hold as moral, not looking to the government to do it for them. The government needs to concentrate on matters of economics and trade and ensuring that Americans will see opportunities in which they can feed and educate their children.
As I may or may not have bleated before, this does not mean that the government is completely culpable. "We the people" have to shoulder much of the responsibility. I've noticed a very disturbing trend over the last ten years. Americans are lazy when it comes to (self) education. Many Americans want technology and information exchanges legislated because they cannot be bothered to educate themselves. Most of the "computer illiterate" I've had the misfortune of working with are willfully ignorant. They feel that the knowledge should somehow be provided to them for free (sparking the tangent argument for poor IT worker compensation). These are usually the same individuals who buy into the party line and take their political choices at face value rather than educating themselves on the issues, and the ramifications said issue carry.
It seems that much of our country wants to be protected, have all their decisions made for them, and be spared the bother of practicing their responsibility as informed voters. This is troubling, because I hate the idea that the lazy and willfully ignorant are making all the decisions for the rest of us. Am I alone in these feelings?
Upon reading this post, my initial reaction was something akin to karmic suicide. After two or three breaths I decided to check the poster's history and freaks list. Enlightening...
I must concur with purple_cobra on this. It is not as if the guy hopped a commuter flight over here, raped and killed a public official and then fled back to the UK to escape the crime. Further, I seriously doubt that even a maliciously motivated American would be extradited for attacking a Parliamentary computer system. This extradition appears to be a politically motivated publicity campaign so that we can "show the world" what bad-asses we are.
A) Why should he be tried in a country where the crime did not take place?
Where was he when he committed the crime? If one stands in Mexico and shoots and kills someone standing across the border in the US then where does the crime take place, at the point of meditation or the point of effect? Under whom does jurisdiction over the case fall? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious how this would be handled.
B) Why do you think he won't get a fair trial in the US?
Aside from the fact that if anyone of non-white (and some white) background so much as farts into a west wind is investigated as a potentially terrorist threat? Even Americans are terrified of Homeland Geshtapo...err...Security and the suspension of Habeas Corpus (at all levels of government from Federal to podunk county governments no less), imagine how non-U.S. citizens must feel.
C) From the article "McKinnon faces a maximum sentence of five years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine." How is that a disproportionate sentence?
When the US takes a notion to make examples we can magically conjure a plethora of charges from our rectums which could increase the severity of the sentence. We've already established a reputation of cinema and ignorance fueled overkill when dealing with computer crimes. Look at the Mitnik case. Additionally, see B above.
On another note, I've got to agree with an earlier comment on the claim of $900,000 in damages. We've already determined that the U.S. military are pretty damned incompetent if they are leaving unsecured systems accessible from public networks. Now we're hearing that the system was so fragile that he managed to do $900,000 in damage? Man, some info security officer's going to be seeing the unemployment lines. I doubt that much damage could be done to an Enterprise Network by a skilled hacker with true malevolent intentions and a full administrative access.
This looks like a BS loaded case. No wonder he doesn't want to be extradited to the country that's rapidly developing a reputation bordering on fascism. Hell, the guy would probably rather face Mussolini personally than any part of Bush's American justice system.
Not a completely dead breed. I used to follow the experimental/stable convention myself and wish it was still that way. Now it seems to be the experimental/experimental convention.
In the past I almost always compiled the kernel for the specific need. Nowdays, however...
Perhaps, by their convoluted definition it is not spyware but it is malware no matter how you slice it.
As one other poster mentioned, this is the genesis of trend. No doubt we will see more of this sort of thing. The spyware, adware, demographic, data mining industry has replaced (grown out of?) the dot-com collapse and the American consumer is left with herds of digital predators with a singular interest: "take the consumer's money".
It's long been a popular practice for anything sales to tread the slippery slope of both ethics and the law. Spam distributors began creating "subscription newsletters", so its not "spam" anymore. Telemarketing firms and "outside" sales groups no longer "employ" to fill "jobs" but instead offer "opportunities" (as independent contractors so they can evade employment law, a practice I've seen put to shady use countless times). Telemarketers no longer interrupt dinner with a "cold call", they interrupt dinner with a call only to "parties who've expressed an interest", despite the fact that the customer wasn't made aware that they were putting themselves on a list when they filled out that survey at the mall. You can get a free vacation, iPod, dildo, pony, etc... no purchase necessary, as long as you commit to spend the equivalent of the national deficit on some shady promotional hotel package or subscribe to 300 crap-ass magazines owned by a conservative publishing house. I recall once hearing a sales manager tell a group of door-to-doors, "I don't care if you have to knock them down and take their wallet, just get their money". The corporate clowns in the leather chairs promote this behavior. Managers encourage, or even require, "sales associates" to hardsell extended warranties for electronics products. Telemarketers and door-to-door vermin are driven and even threatened to push to the very borders of harassment. The oil companies increase the gas prices to "cover the cost of gasoline reformulation" which reduces gas mileage, further increasing cost...But I digress.
These companies will manipulate any small detail to be able to say, "It's not spyware", and rest assured, their lawyers have pulled all-nighters splitting the hairs to ensure that this is a "legal" statement. And in legalize it may be true, but legalize != reality.
In the end I guess it's the physics of bullshit. It's all spin. Hell, it's also up and down and goddamn strange, but it completely lacks beauty or charm. (Yea, I know I left out top and bottom but I couldn't think of a witty BDSM reference to justify them).
I know I am going to be reiterating much of what the slashdot community has said in response to this post, but I feel these points merit emphasis.
First of all, the upper management of your company is a confederacy of morons. They face the potential of opening a Pandora's Box of both legal and economic chaos. This situation is typical of the "act now think later" mindset that seems to be the MBA's strong suit. I hope your ICs have good lawyers, they may well need them when the liability buck gets passed to them.
Having worked as an IC for an out-sourcer, I can say that the potential of liability is significant. Both myself and the company to which I contracted dodged a few bullets. In every instance data loss was involved. Some were due to poorly established procedures within the company, others were due to ignorance or negligence by the client. In either case, litigation could have resulted in disaster for the company if not for myself. It is for this reason that I tread with extreme caution when contracting.
Depending on the stipulations of liability, your ICs would be wise to flatly refuse work outside of the company's directly controlled resources. As the control and ownership of the hardware and data changes (in this case from the company to privately owned machines) the distinction of culpability becomes blurred, further exposing both the company and the independent contractors to liability, should the unthinkable occur.
I highly endorse the recommendation by many other readers of developing a liability waiver. While this won't deter a righteously pissed-off litigant, it may serve to assuage frivolous suits. It certainly won't protect anyone from complaints to management, or demands for someone's job.
Aside from convincing upper management of the potential horrors in store the implementation of downright draconian and imperialistic standards of practice are in order here. Create the most anal and hellish SOP you can devise; one which leaves a little room for error or deviation as absolutely possible. Force the strictest adherence to an established protocol which sanity can withstand and take nothing, even the smallest thing, for granted. While such policies are anathema to most of us, this is a case where it might be the only thing between your ass and the chopping-block.
Establish a clearly defined protocol for data retention and disaster recovery, including the provision for the appropriate hardware and its use (all designed with mobility in mind). Establish practices of fully backing up all data, no matter how trivial. And regardless of all else, never take the hardware owner's word for anything , ever !!
The best practice would be to do some research and present the upper management with a series of disaster stories. Be sure to emphasize the financial loss incurred directly or indirectly (via lost production over time, etc.) in each instance. The surest way to get their attention is to clearly illustrate the financial risks involved in such a decision. Consider, after showing the ultimate financial wisdom inherent, in making alternative recommendations, such as providing computers (owned by the company) to these employees, thus eliminating the control of ownership and thus limiting liability. While I do not believe that the company is likely to be willing to loan hardware to their employees this might lead to other creative solutions.
While my stance on this matter may sound alarmist, I have seen enough near-misses to make me gun-shy. You could operate for several years with no incident, but once that first incident occurs the floodgates will be open. And, in the end, it will be your IT people who serve as the scapegoats. The company will hang them out to dry, one and all.
Finally, I will no longer have to work so hard to suspend disbelief when a captian on Star Trek talks to the big screen as if the guy on the other side can see him.
Whew! Thanks Apple!
Slashdot Mirror
Many individuals who'd achieved a relative degree of success in their field of expertise but had experienced a lack of luster with their careers became college instructors. By doing this you can capitalize on your knowledge and experience and use it to transition into another field.
In this case you are damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't. On one hand, if you do as directed you are not only committing an unlawful act but are compromising your own ethics. On the other, you are risking your livelihood or at the very least your vocational bliss by introducing friction within the workplace and risk being branded a "boat rocker". So what's a guy or gal to do?
If your ideals don't outweigh your desire to eat or your career ambitions I'd recommend a nice typewritten statement regarding situation and your disagreement with the actions taken. In this statement be cautious about making accusations (somewhat unavoidable but try to tone it down if possible) and attempt to keep the tone as neutral and matter-of fact as possible. Have HR or personnel add this statement to your file in the event this ever comes back to haunt you. There is no need to distribute this letter all over the office or to the various levels of management, just have it placed in your file (and possibly your immediate supervisor; though consider this carefully as it could cause more harm than good) as a defense against reprisal should the hammer ever fall and the company decides to offer you up as a scapegoat.
The objective here is not to accuse anyone of anything or to pass an ethical judgment. You are merely saying, "I performed this assignment under protest for such-and-such reasons". While unlikely, should the situation turn ugly you can declare absolution.
Damn! I fell into the trap of common parlance. You are quite correct that "begs the question" is improper usage in this context.
Thank you for pointing this out. I have learned something today.
What does it say about corporate employment in this country when Google can slide down the slope and still remain more desirable than almost any other employer out there? This doesn't sound like Google did an analysis of their employment practices so much as a "Consulting Firm" did an analysis and recommended a series of cost cutting measures, which begs the question, "Why is Google suddenly concerned about small matters like a paid lunch break when they weren't before?" Financial trouble?
Where are the chapters on "Managing Things You Don't Understand, with Authority" and "Second Guessing Those Who Understand It Better Than You"?
Over the past several years I've noticed a growth of IT Management out of decidedly non-technical disciplines such as sales, architecture (as in drafting), human resources, and a plethora of other "how do I delete my cache" disciplines. If I recall correctly, I've met one Manager who had a background in IT in the last two years. While I'll be the last to deny that it is possible to move laterally into a technical discipline, in almost every instance that I've witnessed, these faux IT Managers have sorely lacked in the necessary traits and understanding to adequately fulfill the responsibilities of their role. This commonly results in a department of bitter techs and engineers slaving to overcome the hurdles of an understaffed, under budgeted department while the management boob takes the pat on the back from upper.
I'm just not too sure how I feel about a book that has the potential to encourage yet more "non-techs" to move into a discipline they are ill equipped to comprehend, much less manage. It has nothing to do with the ability to "manage geeks", it's about the ability to manage the technology. Management plays the "geeks are hard to manage" card all to often to obfuscate their piss-poor grasp of the process of dealing with a technological infrastructure and they naturally assume that it's the "geek's" fault.
As an added caveat, this guide could also promote the principals du jour of IT Management, which have been developed from a managerial path-of-least resistance, pass-the-buck mindset, or watch-the-bottom-line paranoia (not to imply that budget consideration isn't a valid part of the job) rather than from actual methods designed to achieve security and efficiency in regular information systems operations.
On the flip side, if this book actually imparts the knowledge to enable individuals to develop their own management methods based on actual needs then it might be a good thing. And if all of the technical jargon and silly acronyms frighten the unqualified from other areas then all the better.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. So why can't I stop laughing! My god that's funny. Just plain funny.
I had almost the exact same experience some time back. The remote was in a thermally sealed clamshell package so I used a set of shears to slice the package open only to discover that the hidden manual (with all the codes) had been sliced in half and fell, like confetti, to the floor. I've also nearly destroyed a few items (as well as myself) during the attempt to extract them from the packaging.
White Wolf has had a pretty bad reputation for engaging in projects that either never see completion (several stillborn video game projects and a few physical marketing plans) or simply torpedoing a project all-to-hell so that it's complete fubar by the time it does see market, pocketing the cash and leaving the developer to twist in the wind (I'm sure some of you can think of a few). Such a track record doesn't bode well for a company with a demonstrated track record of failure, especially with digital media products.
Based on this, and this is only my opinion, I don't have much faith in WW's ability to carry out projects in an efficient and cost effective manner. More than likely they may sqeeze a few bucks from an RPG ruleset for EVE before they pocket the cash and bail, but I don't think they have the wherewithal to actually take effective advantage of a partnership with a (video/computer) game production house.
Help desk techs doing SQL DBA work? And supposedly this is a "recent trend?" Actually, I've been seeing Helpdesk and Support positions with "heavy" or "strong" SQL knowledge required. Some even go so far as to specify DBA background. There's a heck of a lot more to being a DBA than just installing SQL, setting up users and creating a DB, but it's not uncommon for people who don't understand that to think that they could do it. I agree, which is why this strikes me as so absurd.
If there are collections, no way, but large debts I generally ask the applicant to explain if I really want to hire him/her.
And I'd explain that it was none of your goddamn business.
If this is the only ding you have on your credit report, employers can note the distinction between a medical related debt and something like consistently missing your mortgage payment.
This assumes that the employer will bother to make the distinction, which they will not do. The employer is likely screening potential hires on a blind index. Considering the ever decreasing performance standard being set by HR personnel world-wide, a potential candidate will be circular filed without a "human" analysis of circumstances in order to move on to the stack of 1138 other résumés on the desk.
Even in the absence of hundreds or thousands of other applicants the cop-out, "I'm sorry that's just company policy" will be played.
Just as a point of perspective, people in 1850 also did not need to undergo credit checks in order to secure gainful employment, either.
While I think the air conditioning thing is merely a token argument I'll add this: Try making a good impression at a job interview in the south when you have no air conditioning. Trust me, it's very difficult to look presentable in a suit when you are literally drenched in sweat and humidity. And while you might think that the interviewer would make allowances for the climate, draconian attitudes prevail.
I'd actually be inclined to argue that meat (or a viable and possibly costly vegetarian substitute) is more important to (healthy) survival than air conditioning. While I'm inclined to agree, strictly speaking, that air conditioning is not nessesary to survival it does fall into the category of things that one ought to have. Take for instance, nice clothing.
Nice clothing isn't nessesary to survival, by any means, but try interviewig for a job in rags and see how quickly you are eliminated from consideration.
I feel like my argument serves to further deviate from the issue of employer credit screenings, but I couldn't resist making the comment, nonetheless.
Definitely Kate Beckinsale as the brilliant nymphomaniac physicist who can't willingly keep her clothes on in... oh wait, that's my fantasy ... Probably make one hell of a movie though.
Okay then, I guess it's gotta be Doctor Emmett Brown and his sidekick, Dr. Delorian.
I'll respond to this as nicely as my sensibilities permit.
I've seen your precious Nick Berg beheading video. The damn thing makes my blood run cold and my instinctive reaction is a strong desire to personally nuke the entire Middle East out of existence. Then, the critical thought processes overcome the base instincts of rage and fear (popular motivations these days). The individuals who killed Berg are driven by ignorance, hatred, and fear. It is also the ignorance, hatred and fear of some Americans that threatens our freedoms.
And it is also ignorant, and dishonorable, to use the video of the Berg beheading as propaganda to fuel a fascist fear campaign and you do your argument no favors by brandishing it as a rallying flag!
Have a day.
What happened to the republican ideal of "less government"? This trend of over legislation has become an epidemic.
Schools and libraries already have the means to block such sites if they choose to do so. Considering that schools should be considering implementing such practices proactively, or citizens demanding it directly of the schools, congress adds nothing by legislating at this level. Libraries, might be a different matter, however... but let's stick with schools for the moment.
This is similar to the problem we saw with the advent of the conservative family values campaign. We-do-not-need our government to legislate morality, that is the right and the responsibility of the populace at large. Parents and social groups should be reinforcing the behavior they hold as moral, not looking to the government to do it for them. The government needs to concentrate on matters of economics and trade and ensuring that Americans will see opportunities in which they can feed and educate their children.
As I may or may not have bleated before, this does not mean that the government is completely culpable. "We the people" have to shoulder much of the responsibility. I've noticed a very disturbing trend over the last ten years. Americans are lazy when it comes to (self) education. Many Americans want technology and information exchanges legislated because they cannot be bothered to educate themselves. Most of the "computer illiterate" I've had the misfortune of working with are willfully ignorant. They feel that the knowledge should somehow be provided to them for free (sparking the tangent argument for poor IT worker compensation). These are usually the same individuals who buy into the party line and take their political choices at face value rather than educating themselves on the issues, and the ramifications said issue carry.
It seems that much of our country wants to be protected, have all their decisions made for them, and be spared the bother of practicing their responsibility as informed voters. This is troubling, because I hate the idea that the lazy and willfully ignorant are making all the decisions for the rest of us. Am I alone in these feelings?
You can NEVER rely on someone else to protect you, thats just the way it is.
Nor SHOULD anyone rely on someone else to protect them. Which brings us back to, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
Upon reading this post, my initial reaction was something akin to karmic suicide. After two or three breaths I decided to check the poster's history and freaks list. Enlightening...
I must concur with purple_cobra on this. It is not as if the guy hopped a commuter flight over here, raped and killed a public official and then fled back to the UK to escape the crime. Further, I seriously doubt that even a maliciously motivated American would be extradited for attacking a Parliamentary computer system. This extradition appears to be a politically motivated publicity campaign so that we can "show the world" what bad-asses we are.
A) Why should he be tried in a country where the crime did not take place?
Where was he when he committed the crime? If one stands in Mexico and shoots and kills someone standing across the border in the US then where does the crime take place, at the point of meditation or the point of effect? Under whom does jurisdiction over the case fall? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious how this would be handled.
B) Why do you think he won't get a fair trial in the US?
Aside from the fact that if anyone of non-white (and some white) background so much as farts into a west wind is investigated as a potentially terrorist threat? Even Americans are terrified of Homeland Geshtapo...err...Security and the suspension of Habeas Corpus (at all levels of government from Federal to podunk county governments no less), imagine how non-U.S. citizens must feel.
C) From the article "McKinnon faces a maximum sentence of five years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine." How is that a disproportionate sentence?
When the US takes a notion to make examples we can magically conjure a plethora of charges from our rectums which could increase the severity of the sentence. We've already established a reputation of cinema and ignorance fueled overkill when dealing with computer crimes. Look at the Mitnik case. Additionally, see B above.
On another note, I've got to agree with an earlier comment on the claim of $900,000 in damages. We've already determined that the U.S. military are pretty damned incompetent if they are leaving unsecured systems accessible from public networks. Now we're hearing that the system was so fragile that he managed to do $900,000 in damage? Man, some info security officer's going to be seeing the unemployment lines. I doubt that much damage could be done to an Enterprise Network by a skilled hacker with true malevolent intentions and a full administrative access.
This looks like a BS loaded case. No wonder he doesn't want to be extradited to the country that's rapidly developing a reputation bordering on fascism. Hell, the guy would probably rather face Mussolini personally than any part of Bush's American justice system.
Not a completely dead breed. I used to follow the experimental/stable convention myself and wish it was still that way. Now it seems to be the experimental/experimental convention.
In the past I almost always compiled the kernel for the specific need. Nowdays, however...
err..okay, maybe we are dying.
Perhaps, by their convoluted definition it is not spyware but it is malware no matter how you slice it.
As one other poster mentioned, this is the genesis of trend. No doubt we will see more of this sort of thing. The spyware, adware, demographic, data mining industry has replaced (grown out of?) the dot-com collapse and the American consumer is left with herds of digital predators with a singular interest: "take the consumer's money".
It's long been a popular practice for anything sales to tread the slippery slope of both ethics and the law. Spam distributors began creating "subscription newsletters", so its not "spam" anymore. Telemarketing firms and "outside" sales groups no longer "employ" to fill "jobs" but instead offer "opportunities" (as independent contractors so they can evade employment law, a practice I've seen put to shady use countless times). Telemarketers no longer interrupt dinner with a "cold call", they interrupt dinner with a call only to "parties who've expressed an interest", despite the fact that the customer wasn't made aware that they were putting themselves on a list when they filled out that survey at the mall. You can get a free vacation, iPod, dildo, pony, etc... no purchase necessary, as long as you commit to spend the equivalent of the national deficit on some shady promotional hotel package or subscribe to 300 crap-ass magazines owned by a conservative publishing house. I recall once hearing a sales manager tell a group of door-to-doors, "I don't care if you have to knock them down and take their wallet, just get their money". The corporate clowns in the leather chairs promote this behavior. Managers encourage, or even require, "sales associates" to hardsell extended warranties for electronics products. Telemarketers and door-to-door vermin are driven and even threatened to push to the very borders of harassment. The oil companies increase the gas prices to "cover the cost of gasoline reformulation" which reduces gas mileage, further increasing cost...But I digress.
These companies will manipulate any small detail to be able to say, "It's not spyware", and rest assured, their lawyers have pulled all-nighters splitting the hairs to ensure that this is a "legal" statement. And in legalize it may be true, but legalize != reality.
In the end I guess it's the physics of bullshit. It's all spin. Hell, it's also up and down and goddamn strange, but it completely lacks beauty or charm. (Yea, I know I left out top and bottom but I couldn't think of a witty BDSM reference to justify them).
What's frightening is that I don't have to look up GENOSHA. I remember that plotline.
I'm so going to nerd hell!
I know I am going to be reiterating much of what the slashdot community has said in response to this post, but I feel these points merit emphasis.
First of all, the upper management of your company is a confederacy of morons. They face the potential of opening a Pandora's Box of both legal and economic chaos. This situation is typical of the "act now think later" mindset that seems to be the MBA's strong suit. I hope your ICs have good lawyers, they may well need them when the liability buck gets passed to them.
Having worked as an IC for an out-sourcer, I can say that the potential of liability is significant. Both myself and the company to which I contracted dodged a few bullets. In every instance data loss was involved. Some were due to poorly established procedures within the company, others were due to ignorance or negligence by the client. In either case, litigation could have resulted in disaster for the company if not for myself. It is for this reason that I tread with extreme caution when contracting.
Depending on the stipulations of liability, your ICs would be wise to flatly refuse work outside of the company's directly controlled resources. As the control and ownership of the hardware and data changes (in this case from the company to privately owned machines) the distinction of culpability becomes blurred, further exposing both the company and the independent contractors to liability, should the unthinkable occur.
I highly endorse the recommendation by many other readers of developing a liability waiver. While this won't deter a righteously pissed-off litigant, it may serve to assuage frivolous suits. It certainly won't protect anyone from complaints to management, or demands for someone's job.
Aside from convincing upper management of the potential horrors in store the implementation of downright draconian and imperialistic standards of practice are in order here. Create the most anal and hellish SOP you can devise; one which leaves a little room for error or deviation as absolutely possible. Force the strictest adherence to an established protocol which sanity can withstand and take nothing, even the smallest thing, for granted. While such policies are anathema to most of us, this is a case where it might be the only thing between your ass and the chopping-block.
Establish a clearly defined protocol for data retention and disaster recovery, including the provision for the appropriate hardware and its use (all designed with mobility in mind). Establish practices of fully backing up all data, no matter how trivial. And regardless of all else, never take the hardware owner's word for anything , ever !!
The best practice would be to do some research and present the upper management with a series of disaster stories. Be sure to emphasize the financial loss incurred directly or indirectly (via lost production over time, etc.) in each instance. The surest way to get their attention is to clearly illustrate the financial risks involved in such a decision. Consider, after showing the ultimate financial wisdom inherent, in making alternative recommendations, such as providing computers (owned by the company) to these employees, thus eliminating the control of ownership and thus limiting liability. While I do not believe that the company is likely to be willing to loan hardware to their employees this might lead to other creative solutions.
While my stance on this matter may sound alarmist, I have seen enough near-misses to make me gun-shy. You could operate for several years with no incident, but once that first incident occurs the floodgates will be open. And, in the end, it will be your IT people who serve as the scapegoats. The company will hang them out to dry, one and all.
Thanks.
This looks related to the nag screen story here on slashdot.
Finally, I will no longer have to work so hard to suspend disbelief when a captian on Star Trek talks to the big screen as if the guy on the other side can see him. Whew! Thanks Apple!
Somehow I missed the Microsoft scanning story. What this on slashdot or elsewhere?